Archive for the ‘Electoral College’ category

Trump Wins Electoral College After Clinton Loses The Most Defections Of “Faithless Elector”

December 20, 2016

Trump Wins Electoral College After Clinton Loses The Most Defections Of “Faithless Elector”, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, December 20, 2016

(A good wrap-up of the Electoral College results and Democrat machinations. — DM)




The Clinton supporters have been campaigning hard to convince electors to switch their votes from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. It was a remarkably hypocritical stance for Clinton who repeatedly called Trump failure to promise to abide by the election results as “horrifying” and unAmerican. Clinton maintained that shocked demeanor all the way up to election night when she found herself the loser. She then broke from tradition and refused to concede that night before her supporters. Her campaign then supported challenges in various states and actively sought to convince electors to switch their votes. Well the results are in and it is rather surprising: Of the 10 electors who did not vote for their designated candidate, eight were actually Clinton electors who refused to vote for her. Only two Trump electors switched and neither voted for Clinton.

Four of the electors who were set to vote for Clinton were in Washington state. Of those, three voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the fourth voted for Native American tribal leader Faith Spotted Eagle. They each will face $1,000 fines.

The two electors who did not cast their votes voted for Kentucky Sen. Ron Paul and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

In the meantime, Bill Clinton went public with an interview to continue the spin that his wife lost because of FBI Director James Comey and “fake news.” Once again, he did not point to the fake news that was so decisive in the election since the Wikileaks emails were not fake but real news. However, Clinton added that Trump won because “he does know is how to get angry white men to vote for him.” The problem is that white males could not and did not secure the election for Trump. According to the New York Times, Clinton carried only 54 percent of the female vote against Donald Trump. However, nearly twice as many white women without college degrees voted for Trump than for Hillary and she basically broke almost even on college-educated white women (with Hillary taking 51 percent). Trump won the majority of white women at 53 percent.

Other Clinton supporters have explained the results by denouncing women as slaves to their “internalized misogyny. So it is either “angry white males” or self-hating women that toppled Hillary Clinton. Of course, there could be a more obvious answer: people really did not like Hillary as a leader regardless of her gender. It may be that the large numbers of women refused to vote for Hillary simply because she was a woman. Clinton and Trump were the most unpopular politicians ever to be nominated for president and over 60 percent of voters viewed Clinton as fundamentally dishonest. None of that stopped the DNC from engineering her victory over Bernie Sanders who presented precisely the populist campaign that many voters were looking for. Clinton had the Democratic establishment and many allies in the media — everyone agreed except the public. That was enough . . . until the voters had their say on November 8th.

What is striking about this story is how leading Democrats still refuse to acknowledge that the party was seriously out of touch with the electorate. Indeed, after securing her own reelection as minority leader, Nancy Pelosi promptly announced that voters really do not “want a new direction.” Yet, after a huge effort to get electors to move against Trump, most moved against Clinton. The sentiments are not likely to pass despite the coordinated effort to blame Comey or white males or self-loathing women. Few people outside of the Clinton core supporters are buying the spin. The question is how steep this learning curve will be for a party that has continued the same leaders on the same course after the electoral defeat.

Democrats Threaten, Harass Electors: Where is the Outrage?

December 19, 2016

Democrats Threaten, Harass Electors: Where is the Outrage?, Power Line, John Hinderaker, December 18, 2016

(In the highlighted paragraph, it seems very likely that Mr. Hinderaker meant “Obama administration.” — DM)

The Democrats’ ongoing campaign of harassment against Republican members of the Electoral College is a scandal. It shows a complete lack of regard for our democracy. Politico describes how bad the situation has gotten:

In the aftermath of a uniquely polarizing presidential contest, the once-anonymous electors are squarely in the spotlight, targeted by death threats, harassing phone calls and reams of hate mail. One Texas Republican elector said he’s been bombarded with more than 200,000 emails. …

There have been ad campaigns targeting electors and op-eds assailing their role. One Democratic member of Congress has called to delay the vote for president while an investigation of Russian involvement in the election is underway. Two others have pleaded with electors to consider Russia’s role when deciding how to vote. Progressive groups are preparing protests across the country at sites where electors will meet to cast their ballots. Personal contact information for many electors has been posted publicly — and it’s been used to bury them with massive email campaigns. …

Last week saw the release of a video of celebrities like Martin Sheen pleading with Republican electors to vote for someone other than Trump. On Saturday, Unite for America — the group behind the video — began sending personalized versions to electors in which Sheen and more than a dozen others call them out by name.

This is insanity. The election is over, and Trump won. The United States slid down the slope toward becoming a banana republic during the Trump administration, and if electors were bribed or threatened to overturn the result of a presidential election, the process would be complete.

Meanwhile, those who rely on the Democratic Party press for news may not even be aware of the Democrats’ disgraceful behavior. A reader writes:

I cannot find a single news report or, indeed, ANY reference at all in the New York Times that any of this harassment of electors has occurred. None, zero, nada.

Proof, as if any were needed, that the real news is what is not reported; everything else is propaganda. And the Times is the agitprop organ of the liberal establishment’s Inner Party, shamelessly and unhesitatingly so. Intentional spiking of reports unfavorable to the image and, supposedly, as the self-proclaimed “newspaper of record,” to the history of the Party is standard operating procedure for the MSM.

Where is George Orwell when you need him?

Where, indeed?

Being a liberal means Never Having to say you’re Sorry

December 17, 2016

Being a liberal means Never Having to say you’re Sorry, Power Line, Steven Hayward, December 17, 2016

At the heart of liberal utopianism is the concept that through political exertion you can have a perfect society without tragic outcomes of any kind. This is one reason why liberalism rebels against human nature. (In fact, I think we should routinely refer to liberals as “human nature deniers.” Sauce for the goose and all that.)

It is this ineluctable characteristic that explains why liberals are having trouble making it through the five stages of grief over Hillary’s election face plant. Acceptance? No way.

Hence the bevy of Hollywood heroes who are now imploring members of the electoral college to vote for someone other that Trump is terrific ironic comedy gold. Give them props for saying to Republican electors—we’re not even asking that you vote for Hillary! Just some other qualified Republican. So here’s a fun idea: knowing that the House of Representatives would choose Trump in the case of an electoral college deadlock, how about a bunch of Republican electors say, “Fine: How about Ted Cruz?” And then sit back and watch the Hollywoods liberals choke.

Anyway, enjoy this silliness:

Russian Hacking Conspiracy Theory Implodes

December 16, 2016

Russian Hacking Conspiracy Theory Implodes, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, December 16, 2016


The Left’s crusade against Republican presidential electors is kicking into high gear even as the CIA-attributed story that Russian hackers won the White House for Donald Trump is going up in flames.

There is still no evidence –at least none that has been made publicly available– that the Russian government or Russian-backed cyber militias hacked anything to help Trump win the election but that’s not halting the Left’s efforts to delegitimize his presidency before it even begins.

Against this backdrop, members of the Electoral College are preparing to gather this Monday in the 50 states and the District of Columbia to fulfill their constitutional duty. Adding to the drama, some electors are demanding intelligence briefings on the alleged hacking before they vote.

But sometimes not everyone on the Left gets the memo.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch yesterday undermined the Left’s post-election jihad against Trump by rejecting the proposition that the Russian government (or anyone) hacked into voting machines used in the recent election.

“We didn’t see any sort of technical interference that people had concerns about, in terms of voting machines and the like,” she said at an event hosted by Politico.

While community organizers across America whip their followers into a state of frenzy, stories are still being planted in the media by the Central Intelligence Agency or sources claiming to speak for the spy agency. Yet the CIA refuses to be held to account.

When federal lawmakers did their job this week and demanded proof of the Russian hacking allegations, intelligence agencies refused to show up to provide congressional testimony.

Most reasonable people would infer from this appallingly arrogant behavior by the CIA, which has long been home to left-wing Democrats and squishy moderate Republicans, that all this damning evidence we keep hearing about does not actually exist.

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) blasted “Intelligence Community directors” for their “intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress [which] can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.”

Intelligence overseer Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is hopping mad over the CIA’s obstructionism. It is “absolutely disgraceful,” he said, that the intelligence community is refusing to brief lawmakers about the alleged Russian hacking program while false information is being surreptitiously funneled to the media to discredit Donald Trump.

“There is no consensus opinion, and yet we find it in the New York Times and the Washington Post and yet the House Committee on Intelligence was told nothing about this,” King said.

“This violates all protocols and it’s almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States,” King said. He acknowledged it is possible that someone in Congress could also be leaking false information.

Obama White House press secretary Josh Earnest escalated the time-limited administration’s war of words against the incoming president.

Referring to Trump’s fabled July 27 press conference at which the media falsely reported the then-GOP candidate had invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton, Earnest said matter-of-factly Wednesday that Trump asked Russia to use cyberwarfare against Clinton.

“There’s ample evidence that was known long before the election and in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia — everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent,” Earnest said.

“It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent’s campaign.”

“That’s why he was encouraging them to keep doing it,” Earnest said.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose site released thousands of purported emails from senior Democrats during the recent election campaign, threw cold water on the Russian hacking conspiracy theory.

Assange told Sean Hannity yesterday, “Our source is not the Russian government.” He also said the information WikiLeaks received “has not come from a state party.”

What Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 17 suggests Assange may be right.

“As far as the WikiLeaks connection [to Russian hackers is concerned] the evidence there is not as strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided,” Clapper said. “We don’t have as good insight into that.”

Assange told Hannity WikiLeaks received almost nothing on Republicans. “We received about three pages of information to do with the RNC and Trump but it was already public somewhere else.”

Interestingly, Assange, who has been built up in the media to be some kind of radical anarchist, stood by America’s constitutionally prescribed system for choosing a president.

He said:

There’s a deliberate attempt this week to conflate a whole lot of different issues together. It seems to be as a desire, an extremely dangerous and foolish desire, to flip members of the U.S. Electoral College around into getting up John Kasich or Hillary Clinton on the 19th. It’s foolish because it won’t happen. It’s dangerous because the argument that it should happen can be used in four years’ time or eight years’ time for a sitting government that doesn’t want to hand over power and that’s a very dangerous thing. There’s [Hillary] Clinton-aligned PACs putting out ads with lots of celebrities trying to push these electors to do it.

Who’s doing all this conflating? President Obama, Assange suggested.

Hannity asked Assange if the president knows Russia isn’t behind the Democrat electronic document dump and is “purposefully” pushing a false narrative to delegitimize Trump. Assange replied, “yes … there is a deliberate effort to conflate” underway.

Hannity piled on the CIA, noting that “for over 10 years WikiLeaks has never been proven wrong, not one single time.”

The radio talk show host said the CIA pushed the lie that the coordinated military-style attack on U.S. assets in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 arose out of a mere protest.

“The CIA advanced that false story that it was a spontaneous demonstration when we now know it was a terrorist attack. And they advanced it through the CIA in Langley,” Hannity said. “There were some people there that were playing politics at the CIA, advancing a false narrative, a story that we know is false.”

But facts are malleable things and reality is never an obstacle to the plans of the Left.

The fact that Trump never asked Russia to hack Hillary and the CIA apparently has nothing to back up its wild allegations is no reason for those who wish to overturn the recent verdict of the American people to back off.

Something called Electors Trust is claiming that somewhere between 20 and 30 Republican electors are considering not voting for Trump on Monday, the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress Action Fund’s propaganda site ThinkProgress reports. Co-founded by radical Harvard law professor Larry Lessig, Electors Trust claims to provide “free and strictly confidential legal support to any elector who wishes to vote their conscience.”

In a dramatic come-from-behind victory, Trump won 306 of the 538 available elector slots on Nov. 8. Left-wingers want to peel off enough GOP electors to deprive Trump of the magic number 270 he needs to formally secure the presidency in the official Electoral College vote this Monday.

There is almost no chance this coup will succeed but even if the Electoral College were to reach a stalemate Trump would still be on track to become president. With each state’s delegation casting a single vote, the current Republican-dominated House of Representatives would elect a president. The current GOP-dominated Senate would elect a vice president with each senator casting a single vote.

Trump-haters could still try and throw a wrench in the works when the new Congress convenes in January. When Congress begins to officially count the electoral votes, they could apply pressure to lawmakers to contest those votes. But it’s a very hard slog. A written objection has to be made to the president of the Senate, that is, Vice President Joe Biden, and it has to be signed by at least one senator and one House member.

Both chambers then debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. Afterwards, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the electoral votes for them not to count.

Making matters more difficult for the Trump-blockers, Lessig’s estimate of having as many as 30 sympathetic Republican electors in his pocket is almost certainly a hallucination on his part that helps to create the false impression that his anti-democratic campaign is succeeding.

More responsible whip counts place the number of likely faithless electors in the single digits – enough for an interesting historical footnote but not enough to keep Trump out of the Oval Office.

In an email Lessig cited “three groups that I know of working with/supporting electors,” and said that his faithless electors’ estimate is “based on my confidence in the reports from these three groups.”

Lessig told Chuck Todd on MSNBC Tuesday that he shares the goal of groups like Hamilton Electors to convince at least 40 Republican electors to say they’re contemplating dumping Trump.

Lessig is just one of many mass hysteria-afflicted leftists trying to stop Trump from becoming president.

Some officeholders are demanding a congressional investigation of the supposed hacking saga. Others liken the cyber-conspiracy they fantasize to 9/11 and are demanding an independent blue-ribbon commission be created. Maybe Jesse Jackson Sr. will invite the United Nations to participate.

Up to 55 electors –54 of whom are Democrats– have reportedly called upon Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to authorize intelligence briefings on the alleged Russian cyberattacks before the Electoral College votes. California elector Christine Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is spearheading the effort.

Democrat activist Daniel Brezenoff is paying for full-page ads in newspapers across the country such as the Washington Post and Atlanta Journal-Constitution asking electors to “vote their conscience” and reject Trump, Politico reports.

Then there are the left-wingers who have been doxxing Republican electors.

“Liberal groups, including a new one called Make Democracy Matter, have disseminated the names and contact information of the electors and encouraged people to contact Republican electors and ask them to change their vote,” hippy rag Mother Jones reports. “And those messages are arriving to electors’ inboxes, voicemails, and homes by the thousands.”

So now at least we know where all the death threats Republican electors are receiving are coming from.

Left-wing activists call this kind of in-your-face harassment “accountability,” an Orwellian euphemism to be sure. Accountability actions focus on harassing and intimidating political enemies, disrupting their activities, and forcing them to waste resources dealing with activists’ provocations. It is a tactic of radical community organizers, open borders fanatics, and union goons. Taking a cue from Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse, they want to shut down, humiliate, and silence those who fail to genuflect before their policy agenda, or in this case, ignore the votes of the 63 million Americans in 3,084 of the nation’s 3,141 counties or county equivalents who chose Donald Trump for president.

Make Democracy Matter, by the way, shrieks on its homepage that “We can stop Trump from imposing his racist agenda on America … we can build systems and structures that protect people from harm and dismantle white supremacy.”

MoveOn plans to run a 30-second ad on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today featuring faithless Republican elector Christopher Suprun from the 30th congressional district in Texas.

“The CIA report is frightening,” Suprun says in the video even though as far as anyone knows he’s never seen the elusive report.

No doubt the Van Jones-founded Megaphone Strategies, a self-described “social justice media strategy firm” hired by parties unknown to turn Suprun into 2016’s Cindy Sheehan has helped put him in the media spotlight.

In a sanctimonious New York Times op-ed earlier this month, Suprun denounced Trump, saying, “He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage. This is unacceptable.”

After writing that “Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief,” he repeats the proven lie that during the campaign Trump said “Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.” He adds, “This encouragement of an illegal act has troubled many members of Congress and troubles me.”

Suprun, by the way, is quite a piece of work. GotNews discovered he “joined and paid for cheating website Ashley Madison in 2012, using the same address registered to his 9/11 charity, while bankrupt, likely unemployed, and married with three young kids, after he and his working wife owed over $200,000 to multiple creditors.”

More than 35,000 people have signed a petition demanding Suprun “be removed” as an elector.

And then there are the famous college dropouts from Hollywood.

Something called Americans Take Action, apparently doing business as Unite for America, put together a celebrity-larded public service announcement to urge Republican electors to vote for somebody, anybody, other than Donald Trump on Dec. 19.

In the video we learn that idiot actors Martin Sheen, Debra Messing, Bob Odenkirk, James Cromwell, Noah Wyle, and singer Moby have suddenly become champions of the government-limiting U.S. Constitution.

“Our Founding Fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue, and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is, ‘to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications,’ ” Sheen solemnly intones in the video.

A somber Messing repeats Sheen’s words, “to an eminent degree.”

You get the picture.

It’s also been fascinating watching left-wingers embrace Founding Father Alexander Hamilton solely because he wrote Federalist No. 68 which explains the Electoral College and the qualifications of a president.

Because the Left’s narrative paints Trump as a rabid Russophile, these people who otherwise would use the Constitution as toilet paper are heeding Hamilton’s warning that foreign powers might seek to raise “a creature of their own” to the presidency.

And they scream bloody murder about Holy Mother Russia, a country they were only too happy to serve in the days of the Soviet Union when Russian President Vladimir Putin was a colonel in the KGB.

KGB collaborator Ted Kennedy must be rolling in his grave.

The worst-case scenario for the Electoral College vote

December 14, 2016

The worst-case scenario for the Electoral College vote, Israel National News, Mark Langfan, December 14, 2016

Dear President-Elect Trump,

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

The best scenario is the Electoral College votes the 270 electors or more for you, and you take the oath of office on Inauguration Day.  Great, wonderful.

And, what’s the worst? The worst is that under Obama’s artificial CIA claim that the Russians hacked us to win the election, Obama invokes martial law under NSPD-51.  NSPD-51 is the worst.   Google it.  Or, google,

What’s NSPD-51? It stands for “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51, HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20.”  NSPD-51 is an executive order first signed by George Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks which “gave” the President of the United the authority to declare martial law. I put “gave” in quotes because it is only a Presidential Executive Order.  It’s not a “law” or a “constitutional” provision, and it may no longer be valid.  However, Obama re-upped NSPD-51, and apparently re-signed an expansive and secret version that was never really published in full.

NSPD-51, in essence, says the President can unilaterally declare martial law if he deems a “catastrophic emergency” has taken place.  And “Catastrophic Emergency” means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;”

Let’s boil this sentence down to its legal bare-bones: A “Catastrophic Emergency” means any incident, regardless of location, that results in . . . disruption severely affecting the U.S. population or government functions.

What was the real reason for the “leak” to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal of  the “secret” CIA report that “concluded” that Russia, America’s greatest enemy, hacked into the DNC and fed the e-mails into the American media for 2 months before the election so as to win the election for Donald Trump. Just to capture a 24-hour news cycle?  Maybe.

What if the CIA “Russian Hacking Wins for Trump” finding was released so as to lay a false “fake news” ‘factual’ predicate basis for Obama to invoke NSPD-51.  If true, would such a cyber-war event constitute an “incident, regardless of location, that results in . . . disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, . . . or government functions?”  The alleged Russian sneak cyber-attack caused greater “harm” to the United States than the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, they could claim.  Forget the fact that the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency don’t agree with the CIA.  Who knows what level of intelligence finding a President needs to invoke NSPD-51.

In short, instead of tweeting up a storm, I would be lawyering-up a storm to file preliminary injunctions against President Obama and the CIA to prevent any actions with respect to either the Electoral College or under NSPD-51.

Obama may not intend to watch his 8 years of work erased so easily.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Best regards,

Mark Langfan

Briefing the Electoral College on ‘Russian hacks’

December 14, 2016

Briefing the Electoral College on ‘Russian hacks’, American ThinkerDavid Zukerman, December 14, 2016

Last week, writing for this blog about a faithless elector, I cited the passage from Federalist No. 68 (attributed to Alexander Hamilton) noting that the members of the Electoral College were bound by the Constitution to meet in their individual states. I had no idea that that very limitation would be relevant to the curious call by some electors for an intelligence briefing, a call endorsed by John Podesta, Clinton campaign chairman — as I learned from the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, December 13.

For present purpose, I would call to the attention of Mr. Podesta and all Anti- and Never-Trumpers wherever they might be, the opening line of the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President….” Federalist No. 68 makes it clear that the aim of the Founders was to keep the lid on “tumult and disorder” at a convocation of the Electoral College. But a section of Federalist No. 68 that I did not think required quoting, previously, also makes it clear that the aim of the Founders, in keeping the members of the Electoral College confined to their separate states, was to reduce as much as humanly possible “cabal, intrigue, and corruption,” described in No. 68 as “[t]hese most deadly adversaries of republican government….”

How, then, would the proponents of intelligence briefings for the electors propose such briefings take place? Clearly, the spirit of the Twelfth Amendment would prevent an Electoral College briefing for all electors meeting in one place. Should there, then be briefings in the separate states, plus the District of Columbia? Who would conduct the briefings? Would intelligence briefings under the auspices of the national government be consistent with the state basis of the Electoral College? And wouldn’t all electors need to have security clearances for intelligence briefings? Surely, the briefings could not be held under the lax rules approach of the HIllary Clinton e-mails. Or would the briefings solely consist of readings from vague and unsubstantiated articles published in the Trump-resisting New York Times?

The moral I infer from all the commotion about the alleged (fake news?) shadow cast by Russia over the recent presidential campaign is simply this: never underestimate the left’s penchant for what Federalist No. 68 called “cabal, intrigue, and corruption” for purpose of undoing “republican [lower-case ‘r’] government.”

There is, also, an observation in Federalist No. 41 (attributed to James Madison) that seems worth noting in the present context: “A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself.”


Trying to overturn a free and fair election

December 13, 2016

Trying to overturn a free and fair election, Washington Times,


The world has turned itself upside down. Only yesterday the liberals and the left (the “progressives,” as they want to be called) regarded the CIA as the locus of evil, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, forever poisoning gentle minds with a diet of conspiracy and tall tale.

In those gloomy days of the Cold War, where every day was seasoned with a sharp wind and a cold rain, it was the Democratic intellectuals who were forever chiding the rest of us that the Soviet Union was not so bad, the Russians just wanted to be understood and maybe deserved an occasional cuddle. It was the Republicans and other conservatives who were mindless rubes who imagined there was a mad Russian under everybody’s bed.

Now the CIA, in the liberal/left’s fevered dreams, is the last bulwark of the republic, the last remaining hope to turn the 2016 election result on its head and deprive Donald Trump of the victory he won. The Russians, it now turns out, are just as bad as the conservatives said they were.

President Obama, who mocked Mitt Romney four years ago for suggesting that Russia and Vladimir Putin was America’s No. 1 enemy, now says it was Mr. Romney who was smart and got it right four years ago. The president himself, in his telling, is the man dumber than a cypress stump.

The president, at last awake and paying attention to Russian cyber warfare, wants answers, and by noon on Jan. 20. He can then only dine out on the answers, because he won’t have any more authority to do anything about them than the cat.

Desperation pursues despair, and the Democrats are stumbling from inanity to insanity in search of a way to block Donald Trump’s path to the White House. Hilary Clinton’s remnant of a campaign has endorsed an attempt by a handful of members of the Electoral College — 9 Democrats and a rogue Republican — to get the “intelligence briefing” they think might derail next Monday’s scheduled day for the members of the Electoral College to vote for president, 306 of whom are honor bound to vote for the Donald. That’s 36 votes more than he needs.

“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” John Podesta said Monday. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.

“Each day our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump. Despite our protestations this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in our campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”

What should distress every American is the way the left, the liberals, the progressives and their handmaidens in the press have discarded reasonable conversation to try out every absurd alarm, one after the other, to see whether one could stick, to undermine and undercut the results of what everyone agrees was a free and fair election on Nov. 8. None has worked. More than a month later, the republic stands.

Hysteria now threatens to become insanity. Rep. Jim Hines of Connecticut, a Democrat, says it came to him in the night, as if Marley’s ghost was rattling his chains at the bedside, “that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic. I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue, but I would rather have a legal issue, a complicated legal problem, than to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”

Accusing a president-elect of treason, of plotting with the enemy against his country, and with no evidence at all, is something that even a congressman from Connecticut should understand is beyond the limits of rational and decent political debate. Alas, it’s par for the course on the left this season.

The sudden deep concern by President Obama and the Democrats about Russia and cyber warfare, is a bit rich. The Washington Post, which continues so deep in denial that its side lost the election that it may never find the way to the next stage of grief, hangs its survival on the conclusion of the intelligence agencies — which, to put it charitably, have a dismal record of finding out what’s going on anywhere.

A competent president and a responsible “intelligence community” would have done something about the Russians and their hackers a long time ago. Whining doesn’t work.

DOJ Declines To Comment On Why Agency Won’t Investigate Threats To Electors

December 2, 2016

DOJ Declines To Comment On Why Agency Won’t Investigate Threats To Electors, Daily Caller, Kerry Picket, December 1, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice did not want to discuss why the agency refuses to investigate alleged harassment and death threats toward Electoral College voters in states that went for Donald Trump.

“The department will decline to comment,” DOJ deputy press secretary David Jacobs told The Daily Caller in an email Wednesday afternoon.

The Justice Department seemed concerned about protecting voters from being intimidated at the polls on Election Day. It deployed 500 monitors to 67 jurisdictions in 28 states to watch polling stations this past presidential election cycle.

The department’s goal is “to see to it that every eligible voter can participate in our elections to the full extent that federal law provides,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement at the time to the Chicago Tribune. “The department is deeply committed to the fair and unbiased application of our voting rights laws and we will work tirelessly to ensure that every eligible person that wants to do so is able to cast a ballot.”

Some have wondered, then, why the Justice Department and the FBI will not investigate the recent claims of threats and harassment of these electors as per violation of Section 11b of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10307).

Attorney J. Christian Adams, who previously worked in the DOJ’s civil rights division, appeared unsurprised by the department’s reaction, telling TheDC in a statement Thursday, “The Justice Department should be investigating the brutal attacks on Trump voters caught on video and the death threats to Trump electors. Federal law protects people who want to vote. The Obama Justice Department unfortunately only protects people who vote the right way.”

According to the law, it is a crime to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.”

The law was used in the past to protect the rights of average American voters in nationwide elections, but the language is not restricted to the individuals who make up the popular vote.

Voters of the Electoral College who are casting their votes for president and vice president are also protected by Section 11b, since the College is a necessary part of the federal voting process.

Section 14(c) of the Voting Rights Act, for example, says that “voting” includes “all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election.”

The votes Americans cast for president and vice president three weeks ago cannot go into effect if electors, chosen by the voters, are intimidated or threatened from casting their votes in the Electoral College on Dec. 19.

Recount Freakout

November 26, 2016

Recount Freakout, Power Line, John Hinderaker, November 26, 2016

If you’re a liberal, anything is better than admitting that you lost. So now, just weeks after cautioning Donald Trump’s supporters that they had better accept the results of the election (unlike the Democrats in 2000 and 2004), Democrats led by Jill Stein are demanding recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Left-wingers have donated millions of dollars, and the Hillary Clinton campaign has announced that it will participate in Stein’s recount efforts.

The presidential election wasn’t particularly close: Trump won, 306-232. Still, if you convert Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to Hillary Clinton victories, she would edge Trump out, 278 to 260. That is obviously the basis on which those states were chosen. However, there is zero chance that a recount will change the result in any of those states, let alone all of them. Trump won Wisconsin by more than 20,000 votes, Michigan by 10,704 votes, and Pennsylvania by more than 70,000 votes. Lots of luck with those recounts.

Jill Stein claims that she isn’t trying to favor one presidential candidate over the other, but only wants to assure a fair process. That is nonsense. The states she and other liberal activists have chosen to challenge are not those where the race was closest. How about New Hampshire, which Hillary Clinton won by around 2,700 votes? Or Nevada, which she won by a little over 26,000? Even Minnesota was a whole lot closer than Pennsylvania; with its notoriously lax ballot security, Minnesota could be fertile territory for questioning election results.

Liberals know they aren’t going to overturn the result of the election through recounts, they just want to undermine Trump’s victory by making vague allegations of irregularities, “hacking,” and so on, which will circulate in the fever swamp for the next four years. It is, in other words, just another attempt by liberals to undermine our democracy.

The continuing education of the reluctant scholar

November 22, 2016

The continuing education of the reluctant scholar, Washington Times editorialWesley Pruden, November 21, 2016


In this Thursday, Nov. 10, 2016, file photo, high school students protest in opposition of Donald Trump’s presidential election victory in San Francisco. Thousands of high school students have taken to the streets in cities across the country.

It’s an ill wind that blows nobody good, and some of our history class dropouts are at least getting the lesson they missed in seventh-grade civics.

The ill wind blowing across the fruited plain is teaching all those dropouts how America elects the president, and they’re having trouble with the idea that when you have winners and losers somebody has to lose.

There’s abundant bitterness everywhere over this election because nearly everyone expected Hillary Clinton to win it. It was her moral right, after all. The “legacy” media threw away all its long-held traditions of objectivity and joined the Democratic campaign not as observers but as participants.

Donald Trump met several television news personalities Monday at Trump Tower, ostensibly to talk about press access to the president in the new administration, and instead the TV notabilities got the remarkable dressing down from the Donald that they should have got long ago from their editors and managers for the way they all jumped into the tank to swim with Hillary.

Losing was not always like this. The late George McGovern, a thoroughly decent man who offered thoroughly wrong ideas about how to transform America and lost 49 of the 50 states in 1972, told with a wry chuckle how a man and his small son approached him at an airport a fortnight or so after the election to commiserate.

“I was heartbroken when you lost,” the man told him, “and I’m glad to have the opportunity to thank you in person and to shake your hand for all you’ve done for America.”

Mr. McGoo, an authentic American hero who flew dozens of combat mission as a bomber pilot in World War II, returned the thanks, and the boy put out his hand, too. “You shouldn’t feel bad,” he told Mr. McGoo. “Second place is still pretty good.”

Well, close is only good in horseshoes, and losing always hurts plenty. But the Democrats stayed out of the streets, nursed their hurt the way grown-ups always deal with their disappointments, and soon returned to the sound of the guns to fight on another day. They eventually won again. That’s how it’s done.

But the aftermath of this election is different, if not necessarily unique. The left, including many of the merely liberal, thought Hillary Clinton was entitled by right to win the election. She won more than a million more popular votes than Donald Trump, which is impressive but not unprecedented, and the Donald won more electoral votes (and by an impressive margin). Those are the rules, and both candidates knew the rules when the campaign started.

In the homestretch of the campaign of 2000, Al Gore and the Democrats felt the race tightening, as it usually does, and calculated that they might win more electoral votes but fewer popular votes than George W. Bush. Mr. Gore rightly reminded everyone in several late speeches that it was the electoral votes that count. In the event, it was he who won the popular vote and George W. the electoral vote.

When that happened this year the grumbling started quickly because most voters are ignorant of how things work. The only thing most Americans know about the Electoral College is that it must be in the Western Division of the Southeastern Conference, the toughest in all of college football, and might be the only college that could beat Alabama.

So naive are many of these voters that some of them are writing to the 290 Republican members of the Electoral College (or 306 if the popular vote in Michigan holds up) to urge them, occasionally under threat of death, to put aside their sworn allegiance to Donald Trump and vote for Hillary Clinton instead. A petition seeking this highly unlikely result has so far acquired more than 4 million online signatures. It’s legal, though in certain cases such an unfaithful elector could be sentenced to prison and fined besides.

In the nation’s history only 157 faithless electors declined to vote for the candidates they promised to support, and 71 of those cast an unexpected ballot because their man died before the Electoral College met in session. No elector has been “faithless” since 2004, when an elector, promised to John Kerry, voted instead for his running mate, John Edwards (and misspelled his name to boot).

The dead-enders trying to deprive the Trump-Pence ticket of their promised electors imagine their task is not so hard; “all” they have to do is persuade 37 of the 306 Republican electors to switch their votes, which would deadlock the election at 269 to 269. That still wouldn’t change the final result because it would throw the election to the House of Representatives, where each state would cast one vote. The Republicans would likely still win. It just wasn’t a Democratic year.