Why Do Democrats Fear a Voter-Fraud Investigation?
Rush's take on this Issue
RUSH: On CNN’s New Day today, the former chairman of the Democrat National Committee, Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz… By the way, we’re following the campaign of Sally Boynton Brown, chairwoman of the Democrat National Committee, the woman who said that it’s her job to shut up white people at the Democrat National Committee. We’ve endorsed, we’ve thrown our hat in the ring there for Sally Boynton Brown. I really hope it helps and not hurts. We really want her to get that gig.
This is the previous chairwoman. They had to fire her because she had rigged the Democrat Party primaries for Hillary Clinton. She cheated the nomination away from Crazy Bernie Sanders. She was on CNN today with the co-host Alisyn Camerota who said, “You know, President Trump just tweeted about voter fraud. He said he’ll be asking for a major investigation into voter fraud, including those registered to vote in two states, those who were illegal, and even those who were registered to vote who were dead and many for a long time, and depending on results we’re gonna strengthen up voting procedures. Is this an investigation Congress would go along with,” Ms. Blabbermouth?
SCHULTZ: What’s more frightening is that this is an investigation that through the Department of Justice the president can actually conduct without Congress’ authority.
SCHULTZ: The Department of Justice has the ability to launch investigations. Now, of course, we can always stop them from doing that, but that’s quite unlikely. I mean, what’s most disturbing about this is the president’s penchant for lying, also known as “alternate facts” now. From the trivial in terms of how many people showed up to watch his inauguration to him perpetrating the lie that three to five million people, you know, fraudulent voted in his presidential election. I mean, anything that makes him look bad or doesn’t make him look good is something that he is willing to just tell bald-faced lies.
RUSH: Well, you ought to welcome an investigation, then. What is there to fear? If it didn’t happen — and all it’s gonna do is prove Trump to be an insecure ego maniacal, narcissist piece of scum — why don’t you let it happen? In fact, Ms. Blabbermouth, why don’t you Democrats join in the effort and get to the bottom of this and prove that Trump is lying? Pove that Trump is insane! Prove that Trump has got all these security problems. Prove that everything you’re alleging here is true, ’cause it apparently is.
Apparently investigation is pointless. It doesn’t matter whatsoever, and it’s “scary” that you can’t stop it in Congress, but what is there to fear if there is no voter fraud to be found? I would think you would want to have led the investigation yourself! When first Trump ever mentioned this, I would think the Democrat reaction would be, “Let’s investigate,” ’cause it’s apparently gonna be easy to prove that Trump is making it all up, right? Except they want to obstruct it.
RUSH: Look, I will admit, there’s another reason why Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz and the Democrats are scared out of their wits by an official Trump investigation into voter fraud. They’re scared of any Trump investigation into anything. After all, who are they? Let’s examine what their primary fear is. There are two of them, and it’s six of one and half dozen of the other. There is voter fraud. It’s been documented. The Jill Stein recounts! Remember in those investigations, in those recounts, we find in many places there were many more Democrat votes than there were Democrat voters!
There were more votes than people in some precincts. In all of those investigations, Trump ended up gaining votes. In some cases, Hillary did, too. But the point is, there are voter fraud, and we’ve never had a deep, deep, deep official look into it. We’ve had journalists like John Fund do good jobs looking into it. So that’s one fear, that there’s obviously voter fraud out there and that it’s gonna be found, and you find that the Democrats are opposed to any kind of voter ID. What could possibly be the reason for this? What in the…? And here’s Obama in one of his final, in his farewell address or something talking about voting rights?
“It’s harder to vote in America today than it’s ever been” or something like that. It’s asinine. It’s stupid. These people are laying the groundwork for excusing voter fraud when they engage in it in order to level the playing field, ’cause they like to have as many people as possible believing that if you’re black, if you’re minority, “America doesn’t want you voting! Yeah, just like back in the fifties and sixties in the pre-Civil Rights Act days.” Well, that was all Democrats denying blacks the right to vote. That was all Democrats refusing to let ’em into universities. It was all Democrats making ’em sit at the back of the bus or use different restrooms.
Democrats ran the show back then. It was all Democrats were the segregationists. But of course the Democrats have flipped that, and people think otherwise. There’s obviously voter fraud, and most of it probably occurs with them. They are a minority of people and a minority of thinking in the country. We know this. They already can’t win campaigns by being honest about what they believe, so they lie about their intentions, like Obama did in two different campaigns. If they’re lying here and lying there, would they think nothing of cheating here or there?
But the second reason that they might fear an investigation is because they know how they conduct them. (chuckling) When they investigate police departments and find wanton racism, say, in Ferguson or in Baltimore. Who can say otherwise? Here’s an officially sanctioned, Washington investigation. Everybody believes Washington, right? Everybody believes the government. Since the Democrats know how you can phony up results of any investigation you want — how you can phony up unemployment numbers, how you can phony up gross domestic product economic numbers — the Democrats have the know that if Trump wanted to fake the numbers, he could.
They have to know because of what they themselves do. It’s sort of projection in reverse. If you use existing systems to put out phony survey results and phony polling data and phony investigation results in order to advance your cause, might you also believe the Republicans would do the same thing? So they’re sitting there… Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz is afraid of two things: “The real evidence of voter fraud being uncovered or the fact that the Republicans might give the Democrats a dose of their own medicine and make it up, like the Democrats do.
And then what would they do? Run around and say, “You can’t do that. You’re making it up.” “Oh, you mean like you guys did in the unemployment numbers?” And they’d say, “”Well, tit-for-tat doesn’t work here.” And then the Trump Regime would say, “We’re not making anything up.” Demand you to prove otherwise. There would be an investigation in the investigation to find out if the investigation was — and then it would become a joke. That’s I think what they are primarily afraid of, those two things.
Now, interesting, I was watching cable news last night, and they were talking about Trump as everybody always does now. They were talking about Trump and the focus on crowd size at the inauguration, and the focus here on voter fraud, and various members of various roundtables offered their opinions as to what this meant. “Why does Trump do this? Is Trump insecure? Is Trump really so insecure that he just can’t live with the idea that somebody might have gotten more popular votes than he did? Is there…? He cannot live with the idea that fewer people attended his inauguration than attended Obama’s?”
And then they got someone. I forget who it was, and they said, “No, no, no, no, it’s character. This just proves… It’s character. Trump just is deficient in character. This is silly, it’s a waste of time, doesn’t mean anything, but it does to Trump. This is character defect. Now, I want to share with you what I always thought this was. I don’t think it’s insecurity. By the way, just because you’re insecure, doesn’t mean somebody’s not out to get the you. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not coming for you. You can be insecure and right same time. I’m not saying that’s the case.
I think instead, Trump, who is not from the political world but he is from the business world and The Art of the Deal, the art of the repeal, the art of negotiation, he has had to develop superior skills and techniques. And I think he’s running rings around these people. And the thing that I offered yesterday is an explanation for all of this focus on voter fraud, ’cause it worked. I mean, it was magical. I’m sitting here watching the presser, I’m watching the allusion once again to vote fraud, and here’s the press dropped everything else they cared about!
They dropped it, ’cause it’s like a dog whistle because they can’t get past this narrow vision that Trump is sick, mentally sick, that Trump doesn’t deserve to be there, that Trump cheated, that Hillary should be president. They can’t get out of this mind-set, so doesn’t take much of a dog whistle. Here came the reference to voter fraud and two reporters spent practically the next 10 or 15 minutes on it, and I made the point here on the EIB Network yesterday: “What is no longer front and center in the Drive-By Media?”
Answer: Russia stealing the election for Trump. Bye-bye, vamanos, not there. Now we’re back to discussing voter fraud, which there is some. Now they demanded an investigation. Trump said, “You want an investigation? Fine, I’m gonna put my man Jeff Sessions on it.” And now Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz and the rest are quivering, cowering in the corner. They’ve been called out on this, and here’s a little headline at TheHill.com: ” DNC: Trump Voter Fraud Fantasy a Distraction From Russian Help.” Bingo. I think the DNC is listening to this program, and this is why I want to remind them that I have endorsed Sally Boynton Brown to be the new chairman of the Democrat National Committee.
“The DNC said in a statement, “‘Everyone knows there was no massive voter fraud in the election. He can’t let go of his voter fraud fantasy both because he can’t bear the thought that millions more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for him, and to cover up the real crime: Russian efforts to help him win.'” So that’s the DNC statement. Now, I don’t know if anybody else offered that as what really was going on or not. I know I did, that the focus on voter fraud by the Trump Regime has now taken the focus off of Putin and the Russians cheating Hillary out of her glory. The DNC thinks that’s what’s going on.
Everybody else thinks, “Ah, Trump’s got a security problem. He’s got an insecurity problem. Trump’s got a character defect. Trump’s focused on things that don’t matter. It’ll come back to bite him.” I think there’s something much more skillful going on here, because the Democrats and the media — look, I’m sorry to be redundant, folks. They still haven’t figured out what happened and why. They still haven’t figured out why they can’t damage Trump. They can’t figure out why they can’t tarnish him, why they can’t harm him — politically, reputation — and they’re continuing to try.
There’s a new poll out, by the way, Politico, morning consultant: A majority of Americans loved Trump’s inaugural address. (snorts) Contrast that with the analysis of that address by most in the Drive-By Media and the establishment. They said it was an embarrassment. They said it was beneath the dignity of the office. They said it was disrespectful. They said it was pedantic and sophomoric. They said it was selfish and self-focused and small. A majority of the American people loved it. There’s a huge disconnect that continues. There’s a huge part of the establishment that remains out of touch. They don’t know it.
Now, the two stories that I alluded to earlier, one is from the Washington Post, and it’s October 2014. The Washington Post caught hell from their other buddies in the Drive-Bys for even publishing the story. Headline: “Could Noncitizens Decide the November Election?” This was October 2014. This is about the midterms, folks. This was the liberal media worried about the Republicans winning big again in the midterms, and right here, Washington Post: “Could Noncitizens Decide the November Election? — Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? …
“In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections.” It’s by “Jesse Richman is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Director of the ODU Social Science Research Center. David Earnest is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Associate Dean for Research & Graduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters.”
At the conclusion of the bottom of this piece indicates they don’t appear to be conservatives. In fact, their solution to the problem seems to be let everybody vote whether they’re citizens or not. So here you have in the Washington Post in October of 2014 an acknowledgment that illegal citizens vote and a deep worry that these noncitizens are gonna elect Republicans and that we’re gonna win the Senate! I didn’t hear anybody shouting, “Alternative facts! Alternative facts!” I didn’t hear anybody shouting, “BS!” I didn’t hear anybody say, “Wow, Washington Post really insecure.” I didn’t hear anybody say, “The Washington Post really has a mental disorder here” or these three researchers.
The story says, “Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do…”Enough do! Washington Post, October 2014: “But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.” (Gasp!) And then Daily Caller, “Study Claims up to 2.8 Million Noncitizens Voted in 2008.” Yes. So the evidence is all over the place. People have written about it, discussed it, analyzed it. The left demanded an investigation. We’re gonna get an investigation by honest, forthright people, Jeff Sessions and the gang, and Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz — a proven knowing trickster and liar — is worried as all get out that it’s gonna happen.
RUSH: By the way, the authors of that study on voter fraud that we just quoted, they said, “[T]he numbers of noncitizen voters…” This is from the article. You can dig down in it. They “[T]he number of non-citizen voters ‘could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.'” The study was done in 2012, and they projected it’s possible 2.8 million illegal votes, which happens to be close to the margin of Hillary Clinton’s popular vote victory. I’m not drawing any conclusions, but Trump’s not the guy that put the number three to five million out there. Here’s 2.8 million from official social scientists looking into it.
Anyway, let me grab a call, get one in here before the hour expires. This is Jim in Brooklyn. Great to have you on EIB Network, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I’m just calling to say that in New York City throughout the boroughs it’s been reported by Alan Schulkin, commissioner of the Board of Elections for Manhattan, that there is voter fraud going on. And after he made this statement, almost immediately — I think it was the next day, actually — he was asked by Mayor de Blasio to resign from office. The type of voter fraud was that people were being bused to different voting locations in order to vote more than one time at the various locations. But he also said that there’s other types of voter fraud going on. It was a very detailed statement that he made, but they tried to get him out of office, and then when it came up for him to be reelected, he was actually reelected again. The mayor could not get him out. And he’s a Democrat. So even the Democrats are admitting that there is fraud going on.
RUSH: Well, of course, Democrats in New York admitting crime is going on doesn’t imperil the Democrats. They’re not gonna do anything, he got reelected, as you just saw. But that’s the point. It goes on. It happens. I know you’re sitting there saying, “Rush, why?” Well, because the Drive-Bys couldn’t let it go, folks! Remember what we do here. We react. We study the left. We study the Democrats. We dissect ’em for you. In addition to talking about all the other positive aspects of the Trump administration, what’s happening out there is they’re the ones that put this up.
At a press briefing yesterday they pretty much demanded an investigation under the belief that there’s no way Trump can be right; there’s no way it’s happening. Well, now that there’s an announced investigation they’re all backtracking. “No, no, no, no! What? What? No, no, no, no! It’s a waste of time. We don’t need it! We need to get back to abortions and health care and whatever their standbys.” But it’s clear that it happens. The extent to which? That’s what the investigation will uncover. Anyway, Jim, I appreciate the call.
RUSH: We have a sound bite from the just-concluded White House press briefing. This only went about a half hour. It wasn’t the major production of yesterday’s show. Sound bite number 20, Sean Spicer. The question came from John Roberts of Fox News. “This morning the president said he wants to launch an investigation into voting irregular…” See, we’re back to this now. They’re not asking about the Russians. They’re asking about this voting investigation. John Roberts says, “Now, attorneys who are representing the president-elect during the recounts,” that would be Trump,” in various, several states, emphatically stated that all available evidence suggests the 2016 election was not tainted by fraud or mistake. So how do you square those about to things, Sean?”
SPICER: There’s a lot of states that we didn’t compete in where that’s not necessarily the case. You look at the California and New York, I’m not sure that those statements were… We didn’t look at those two states in particular. I mean, as the president has noted before, he campaigned to win the Electoral College, not the popular vote. He campaigned in places like Iowa, he campaigned extensively to win Maine, too. And I think if you were campaigning to win the popular vote you don’t spend a… (chuckles) With all due respect, to my brethren in New England, you don’t spend a ton of time in Maine, too, to get that one electoral vote. You would have campaigned more in California, which he didn’t. You would have campaigned more in New York, which he didn’t. There were big states, very popular states in urban areas where you would have spent more time campaigning.
RUSH: All right, now, this is of course the easy rejoinder here to the, “Well, Hillary won the popular vote.” The popular vote doesn’t elect the president; the Electoral College does. Therefore, the Electoral College determines where you campaign. And if you don’t have a prayer of winning the popular vote in California, you just don’t go there. In a popular vote election, though, the only places that Trump and Hillary would have been would have been New York and California, maybe Texas, some in Illinois. But that would have been it. They wouldn’t have spent any time in North Carolina, hardly any in Pennsylvania, hardly any… Maybe some in Pennsylvania.
But some of these other places that got a lot of attention? Iowa? Nobody would wink at Iowa! Nobody would care. But that still is not a complete answer here. You remember this Washington Post story that I mentioned to you a little while ago from back in 2014 that had research from three different scientists suggesting that in the 2014 midterms, there could have been anywhere from 38,000 illegal votes to 2.8 million illegal votes, from three scientists. Now, guess what? If you go to that Washington Post story right now, you’re going to find that they have some “updates” to it.
The Washington Post updates to their story from 2014 basically say that the information from the sources, the three scientists, has been debunked and that these guys are now considered to be full of excrement. But the Post ran the story with full credit and full credibility back in October of 2014, when everybody was afraid that the Republicans were gonna win the Senate, and if that happened, they wanted to establish that it might have been phony votes. The Democrats did it. The Democrats, the Washington Post ran the story.
Now that Trump is talking about it, the Washington Post has gone back to their website with a little addendum to that story from three years ago which essentially says (summarized), “You know this story we ran three years ago? It’s full of it, and these guys that were our sources, they’ve been exposed as frauds.” I mean that’s not those words, but it’s pretty much how the Post is attempting to say that that story back then was meaningless then, we’re sorry we ran it, and it doesn’t mean anything now.