RUSH: We had a couple calls yesterday, one in particular that I remember from a guy who wanted to know if I thought the effort to not vote for Trump by the Electoral College would succeed. As you know, the left has mounted a couple of different efforts. They are intimidating electors. They're sending them emails, they're phoning them, they're bullying them, they're threatening them to change their vote from Trump to Hillary.
It is unprecedented. It has not happened before. Electors have had some pressure before every election, but it's nothing like this. We had a caller yesterday ask me if I thought they could possibly succeed. And I'll tell you what I told him. I called a bunch of experts on this, a bunch of people I trust and to a man, to a woman, they all pooh-poohed this, there's no way it can happen. There's no way. The laws are the laws and the electors have to follow the laws in many of these states.
And then I said, "That's not good enough for me. I think if you think this can't happen, you still, still do not understand who we're up against here." So I said, "Would you please look at this and tell me, if it does happen, how?" And this is what they told me. The best analysis of the possibility here that I got is this, that, as currently believed, there aren't enough electors who could legally change their votes to get Hillary to 270 electoral votes.
However, an analysis shows that it is possible that some electors could be forced to change their votes and deny Trump from getting to 270 as well.
And if that were to happen, the presidency would then go to the House of Representatives. They would decide it. Since the Republicans control the House of Representatives now and once the next term starts, then Trump would be elected. So I don't think anything is going to change the result, but that doesn't mean their effort isn't gonna continue.
In fact, "Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results." Ladies and gentlemen, I think the Clinton campaign's behind this. I think it is the Clinton campaign that is mounting this effort to intimidate and threaten the electors. You want to hear another theory? Many people are aware now that Trump has supposedly backed off of his campaign promise to continue the investigation and possibly prosecute Hillary Clinton, under the guise of draining the swamp in Washington.
A lot of people are very bothered by this. One of the theories being bandied about is that a deal has been struck, and the deal is if Trump -- this is a behind-the-scenes deal -- and by the way, I don't believe this. I'm just telling you what's out there. That a deal's been struck between the Trump and Clinton campaigns that Trump promises he will not prosecute Hillary; Hillary promises that she will pull back on this effort to threaten and intimidate the electors.
You'd be amazed the number of people that believe that theory, though. I've read various blog posts and listened to people talk about it. And things are still so unsettled out there, and people are still so unnerved because they see the left is showing no signs of indicating that they lost. And I'm trying to tell people, they never will.
Donald Trump's presidency is gonna be the most under siege, attacked presidency we've ever had, day in, day out. It isn't going to stop. Their objective is going to get Trump out of office. The second objective will be to get Trump so scared, so intimidated, he will back off everything he intended to do and essentially implement their agenda. Or, if they can't do that, not implement his. But they do not slink away in defeat. They not shrink away.
Now, I don't believe that theory. But this story comes from a reporter named Dan Merica at CNN. And this guy, we got to know him through the WikiLeaks dump. He was all over the WikiLeaks dump as being connected from CNN to the Podesta and Hillary campaign. And his story is this.
"Hillary Clinton's campaign is being urged by a number of top computer scientists to call for a recount of vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, according to a source with knowledge of the request." Now, stick with me on this.
"The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday."
They claimed that all it will take is changing 55,000 votes in three states and Hillary will be the president. Just to remind you, this guy, Dan Merica, was exposed in the WikiLeaks emails to be one of the Democrat Party's favorite stooges in the Drive-By Media.
Now, are you ready for the real nub of this story? What do you think, after I've read you that first paragraph? "Wow, wow, they found some evidence out there that some rigged votes. They found some evidence in these three states. Wow, there were some games played." No. They haven't found anything. That's the bottom line. The story is a total lie. It's a misdirection, it's a head feint. They haven't found anything. It's just three activists described as computer scientists urging the Clinton campaign to do this.
The computer scientists "told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners. ... The group informed John Podesta ... that Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked. Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review."
In other words, there is zero evidence for this claim.
There is not a shred of evidence. It's just three people calling themselves computer scientists claiming that they have looked at trends and concluding there could have been hackery of voting machines. And they admit there's no evidence of it! But that doesn't matter. Because once again a favorite tactic of the left: The seriousness of the charge vastly outweighs the nature of the evidence. Remember the book by Gary Sick at Columbia alleging that George Bush flew to Paris on an SR-71 to meet with the Iranians and strike a deal that they would keep the American hostages in hostage until after the election, making it easier for Reagan to beat Carter.
There was not a shred of evidence. It never happened. The Speaker of the House at the time was a guy named Tom... Tom... Tom what...? Tom... I'm having a mental block on his name. He was from Washington. And he went on TV and he said, "The seriousness of this charge is such that we must investigate." And they did! They investigated. This is years after the fact, by the way. This is like 1990. Was years after Reagan had left office. But they investigated. And they found nothing. Same thing with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. She had no evidence.
It was the seriousness of the charge that warranted the direction those confirmation hearings took. And the same thing here. There is no evidence. They couldn't find it. They've looked for evidence that there was hackery in the voting machines in three states, and they can't find any evidence, and they admit it. They just say, "Because machines were used, it could have been done." So this effort is real. Now, this story claims that these three scientists, computer scientists have reached a Clinton campaign and are urging them to move forward on this. Nobody will be able to convince me that the Clinton campaign isn't behind this effort to harass, threaten, and intimidate the electors in the states who will vote on December the 19th.
RUSH: Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who said...? In fact it was, because I have the tweet here right in front of me. Back on October 24th, Hillary Clinton tweeted, "Donald Trump refused to say that he would respect the results of the election. That's a direct threat to our democracy." Well, we've had a role reversal here, and Hillary -- her campaign, anyway -- are sponsoring this intimidation tactic of the Electoral College. Why is this not a threat to our democracy? It's Hillary who appears to be the one refusing to respect the results.
And, by the way, lest you think that there's nothing to this, the New York Daily News has a story today. They're cheering from the roof tops. "Six Electors Have Vowed to Change Their Vote to Hillary." Six electors pledged to Donald Trump say they are going to change their vote to Hillary Clinton. "At least six electors have vowed to cast ballots that do not align with the popular vote results of their states, and if they do," if the carry out their intentions, "they would narrow Trump's margin of victory in the Electoral College."
Right now Trump has 290 electoral votes; Hillary has 232. "The highest number of faithless electors in this country..." It has happened. This is not unprecedented. It was 1808 when six electors declined to vote for James Madison, and the New York Daily News says they found at least six members. So Trump at 290, Hillary at 232. So there wouldn't be enough of this to get her to 270 but there are people thinking they can deny Trump 270 as well. BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: From the Washington Post: "The Department Of Justice Is Not Going To Conduct A Vote Audit Based On Your Phoned-In Outrage." There's something else happening out there, in addition to the intimidation of electors. Liberals across the country are phoning the Justice Department demanding that they do a vote audit. They want the DOJ to audit the presidential election vote based on how mad people are out there.
I'm not kidding. This is how deluded and deranged these people are. I'm looking for a way to actually characterize these people. They're sick, folks, they have literally been rendered sick. Your average, ordinary, everyday liberal or Democrat is genuinely mentally ill now when it comes to matters of politics and current affairs, current events. And they've been rendered this way by the media. They literally have believed all this fearmongering and scaremongering. They believe campuses are places where rapes are happening. They believe innocent black men are being gunned down multiple times a day by the cops. They believe that Donald Trump's coming for everybody who's gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, whatever, and gonna be put in concentration camps.
I mean, people believe this. The cast of Hamilton. They're scared to death. And they think Trump's gonna destroy the planet, on purpose. Trump and the Republicans want to destroy the planet. And they want to do it so fast that young liberals will not even reach 65. This is genuine mental illness that we have been up against and that we are up against. And the mental illness extends to the editorial board at the New York Times and their columnists and the reporters and infobabes at CNN. I'm convinced it's a genuine mental illness.
I asked yesterday, you know, watching some 70-year-old, 60-year-old Democrat strategists that I've been watching on TV all my life. I'm asking, what happened to 'em? I mean, they've always been liberal Democrats, but there was none of this fatalistic, fearmongering, scaremongering, apocalyptic, however they describe what they believe, and I'm asking myself, what happened to you? Seriously, what has happened to you? This is as close to insane, clinically insane, as I have seen, what the left believes.
Now you got a bunch of liberals that are calling the Department of Justice demanding that the Department of Justice do a vote recount based on how many angry liberals there are. That alone should justify the recount. And the Washington Post has a wake-up call for these people. The headline: "The Department Of Justice Is Not Going To Conduct A Vote Audit Based On Your Phoned-In Outrage."
So stop it. "For supporters of Hillary Clinton, the post circulating on Facebook and Reddit offers hope. The Justice Department, it claims, is 'tallying calls' from people who want an audit of the 2016 election. And given the small margins that Donald Trump won by in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, a shift of about 55,000 votes is all that would be needed to change the outcome.
"The problem is," and the Washington Post even reports this, "it’s bogus. The Justice Department doesn’t count up calls to determine whether it should launch an investigation." Oh, but there are prosecutors who have. I happen to know this. That's why they're doing it. They're literally calling the Department of Justice asking that their calls be tallied and if enough people call expressing outrage, they think the DOJ will do an audit because of a couple of posts on Facebook and Reddit.
David Jacobs, DOJ spokesman, said, "The Justice Department does not tally the number of callers to determine whether federal action is warranted. Investigatory decisions are based solely on the facts and evidence as they relate to the federal statutes the department enforces."
So that's going on. They really think if they call in enough numbers, they can make the DOJ -- because they believe it. They've heard and they've read these posts on Reddit and Facebook. Sick. (sigh) I don't know.