The Democrats may have bitten off more than they can chew when they decided that a really ludicrous charge of Russia collusion was a good way to “trap” the president and all his officials. With the lowest Democrat sheep on the Leftist totem pole reiterating the charges in the newspapers and on the television nightly news in their op-ed columns and their “news” shows, the Democrat Party was able to whip the people up into a frenzy over Russians and how they were creeping around every corner of every polling place in order to alter massive amounts of votes from Hillary to Trump. Yes, they really believe that. Just stop for a moment to imagine how many polling places are in your little town. Then imagine how many are in the county…the state…the entire United States! Assuming we're going by the number of polling places from 2016 where there were apparently 18 polling places for every 130K citizens, the total in the U.S. would be around 44K.
Divide the 44K polling places into a third, because that is the number that you'd need to affect in order to alter the outcome of the vote, and that number is 14,667. Assuming that you could get 1 person per polling place and you were paying them to break federal elections laws (a huge risk with a huge prison sentence) you'd be paying out a hefty sum of money. Add to that the fact that these nearly 15K people would have to be trained in how to alter any number of types of ballots, without being caught or raising suspicion, and you're talking about an operation that borders on impossible. Of course, we must also take into account that about half of those individuals would have to be trained in electronics and have the ability to alter electronic software that is under lock and key. Don't forget also that each of these polling places has a panel of people who are ultimately responsible for the security of each of these ballots!
So, it's either that above…or…
The Department of Homeland Security, that has access to each and every electronic voting system in the country, and can “scan” each system to look for weakness in the systems, which was under then-Director Jeh Johnson (an Obama loyalist) could theoretically alter data with the push of a button.
Which one seems to be more feasible?
This whole charade about the Russians and their hacking is a ludicrous venture propagated by a weakened Obama brand in the opening months of 2017. The person with a real, honest-to-goodness stake in this election was Obama. His Legacy was on the line and his narcissism was so legendary as to preclude any chance of fairness when it came to an agenda that was being soundly rejected by the American people for nearly a decade. Hillary was the problem for him and his Legacy. He knew this instinctively. He could sense the blood in the water with her weakness on the campaign trail, not able to make it through many of the stops without a hacking coughing fit, or some other strange malady. She couldn't even survive a very weak schedule of debates on Saturday nights against two opponents, one of which was already on the out. The Super-Delegate system was in place, Bernie's star was fading in the Democrat inner circles, and the shield that was built around her was such that she was virtually untouchable. Even the FBI, the State Department and the DOJ were already on board and willing to fall on their swords for her, with the help of her ex-president husband on the airport tarmac, of course. Untouchable, it seemed, by everyone except Donald Trump.
The set-up for Hillary was there and Obama needed insurance. He needs to make sure that Trump was delegitimized and cast out by creating a false narrative of collusion with a foreign government. That was achieved, in my opinion, with the invaluable assistance of Jeh Johnson and the Department of Homeland Security.
Now, that whole can of worms has been opened by Comey in his testimony and there appears to be a ton of unanswered questions that the Judiciary Committee is about to ask, setting up a momentous battle between the Trump White House and the “transparent” Obama White House.
By using fired FBI Director James Comey to attack the new Republican administration, Democrats have opened up a legal can of worms for the Obama administration.
Under sworn questioning, Comey has veered off the topic of President Trump and Russia and revealed several damning incidents in which his predecessor’s administration politically interfered in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And now the Senate will investigate Team Obama for obstruction of justice.
Specifically, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced last week it will hold hearings to “examine then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s involvement in the Clinton email server investigation.”
The findings of the powerful panel, which has oversight of the Justice Department and FBI, could lead to a separate criminal investigation and the naming of another special counsel — exactly what Trump needs to distract attention from his growing legal woes.
What Lynch did reeks of obstruction. According to Comey, his ex-boss:
Ordered him to mislead the public about the criminal investigation of Clinton by calling it a “matter” rather than an investigation. (He complied with her wish, even though it made him feel “queasy.”)
Refused to recuse herself from the case after Comey confronted her about a secret June 2016 meeting she had with former President Bill Clinton — five days before his wife was scheduled to be interviewed by the FBI. (Hillary was cleared three days later.)
Not only is the Senate Judiciary Committee on top of this, but there are also the outliers like the New York Times in its myriad reporting that can at times slip up and publish a gem of a detail that stands out as a “wait-a-minute!” story. Add to it the fact that Comey is just a blank canvass of a man who reflects whatever it is that happens to be painted upon it at the moment. When asked a specific question about anything, the answer can be notoriously different than the same question posed to him moments before.
It also doesn't help that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) appears to be in the same pool of individuals on the Judiciary Committee who seems genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of this mess. Perhaps she was insulted by Hillary Clinton in the past and this has come back to roost now…we'll probably never know. The fact is that she seems ravenous for more.
There are also concerns, raised by a New York Times report, that Lynch privately assured the Clinton campaign she would keep FBI agents in check and wouldn’t let their investigation “go too far,” according to a message the FBI intercepted involving then-Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Worried his boss had a “conflict of interest” overseeing the Clinton investigation, Comey testified he “considered whether I should call for the appointment of a special counsel” to take over the case. That would’ve been the right move. Curiously, Comey instead shut down the probe and let Clinton off the hook — three weeks before her presidential nomination.
How compliant was Comey? Here’s how he responded to Lynch’s demand he “align” his rhetoric with the Clinton camp: “I just said, OK.” What other Lynch meddling did he go along with during the yearlong Hillary probe, which was marred by suspiciously generous immunity deals, favorable ground rules, a near-absence of grand jury subpoenas and a rushed closure ahead of the DNC convention?
These are questions the Senate judiciary panel, chaired by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, might like to ask Comey, along with: Who else was in the room during your meetings with Lynch, and did you take notes?
Any notes could be subpoenaed, along with the Wasserman Schultz document, which, contrary to recent media reports, isn’t fake. (Comey testified such reports are “nonsense.”) So might the NSA recording of Lynch’s chat with Clinton, which took place on board a government plane.
Congressional sources say Lynch will almost certainly be called to answer Comey’s allegations under oath. What did she and Bill Clinton discuss? Did the investigation come up? Why didn’t she recuse herself, despite admitting it looked bad? And did she in fact promise the Clinton campaign a whitewash?
I believe that at this point, there is not a single Democrat, barring Obama of course, who is feeling confident about their being called to testify in such an investigation, should they have knowledge of the goings-on between these power players. This is the outcome of a nasty attempt to separate the truth from reality under the wildly naïve belief that a) Trump was too weak to fight back against an avalanche of negative press from all sides (including Republicans) and b) the Trump support would wane in the wake of this onslaught because they are too stupid to read between the lines and see “fake news” and this push to delegitimize their president for what it really is.
To their dismay, I believe this is about to become deadly for the Democrats and extremely nasty for the Establishment Republicans.
Source: New York Post