BloggeRhythms

With poll results and conflicting pundit opinions still inconclusive regarding the presidential elections, today Rush provided memory’s of a similar situation back in 1980.   

“RUSH: Yesterday on this program I discussed the 1980 election, Ronaldus Magnus and Jimmy Carter, and in it I described the election night coverage that night and how I will never forget it. Because this was the election that they called for Reagan before California had even closed the polls, it was such a landslide.  

“Yet the last polling data going into the election in 1980 had Jimmy Carter winning by nine points.  And so Cookie went back to the archives and got a bunch of audio from John Chancellor, Judy Woodruff, Tom Brokaw and David Brinkley on NBC's election night coverage of 1980 simply because of the way I had described it yesterday.  It was even discussed on Fox & Friends today.  So we'll start with those two just to set it up.” 

After describing the total confusion displayed by the left-leaning media aristocracy, several of whom were visibly upset by the results, Rush summarized the situation.   

“RUSH:  They were bamboozled!  They couldn't figure it out!  Reagan was an actor!  The polls didn't say anything this was gonna happen.  They were beside themselves!  He was an actor, he was a sports announcer.  Could it have been, Brinkley wanted to know, could it have been that a lot of people decided to vote for Reagan, didn't want to say so?”

All of which led to Rush’s conclusion: “(imitating Brinkley)"I don't want to pick on the polls, but they didn't tell us this, they didn't give us any indication of this.  There's a lot of people that voted for Reagan didn't want to say so?"  Clearly could be happening this year.  They are shaming Trump so much that it might be causing a lot of people to not say they're voting for Trump 'cause they don't want to give any sort of idea here.”

While the distinct possibility surely exists that many voters choose to keep their candidate preferences to themselves, evidence continues to mount establishing Democrat duplicity. Today’s item coming from a generally supportive source.

According to Steve Eder @nytimes.com: “In a March 2015 interview, President Obama said that he had learned about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

“But that assertion concerned aides of Mrs. Clinton, who knew that the president himself had received emails from the private address, according to a hacked email made public on Tuesday by WikiLeaks.” 

Top aide Cheryl D. Mills, wrote to John D. Podesta, another senior adviser, on March 7, 2015: “We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov.” 

“Two days later, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, tried to clarify the president’s remarks, saying that he had, in fact, exchanged emails with Mrs. Clinton through her private account. But Mr. Earnest suggested that the president had no idea the emails could be a problem because he had relied on Mrs. Clinton to make sure that using a private account did not break any laws. 

“The point that the president was making is not that he didn’t know Secretary Clinton’s email address — he did — but he was not aware of the details of how that email address and server had been set up, or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act,” Mr. Earnest said on March 9. 

Nonetheless, despite Earnest’s attempts to cloud the subject, the “evidence” speaks for itself, serving as another example of the party’s habitual disregard for security in communication, putting themselves above the national interest. 

In that regard, Neera Tanden, another adviser, traded several messages with Podesta “on March 2, 2015, the day The New York Times first reported Mrs. Clinton’s use of the private email address. 

“Ms. Tanden also lamented the timing of the revelation and blamed Ms. Mills, a close Clinton confidante who had worked with her at the State Department, calling it a “Cheryl special.” She suggested that Ms. Mills and other members of Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle who knew about the private emails had probably hoped to keep them secret. 

“Why didn’t they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy,” Ms. Tanden wrote. “Unbelievable,” Mr. Podesta responded. 

Ms. Tanden wrote back: “i guess I know the answer. they wanted to get away with it.” 

“Another exchange between Mr. Podesta and Ms. Mills released last week appeared to show them discussing whether Mrs. Clinton’s private emails to and from Mr. Obama could be withheld from the public under the law. 

“Think we should hold emails to and from POTUS,” Mr. Podesta wrote on March 4, 2015, using the acronym for the president of the United States. “We could get them to ask for that.” 

Which led to the Times conclusion: “For Mrs. Clinton, the private email account to conduct State Department business has been a constant source of criticism during her presidential campaign, prompting a series of explanations and apologies from her and her aides, and even an F.B.I. investigation.” 

Thus, the accumulation of highly questionable situations may very well be  a major reason for reader reactions on Facebook. 

Today the following item appeared:

3,800 readers acknowledged the entry with “likes.” 

 

Farther along was a link to an article from Judicial Watch, discussing deeper probes into Clinton email activity which showed: “3,118,546 people like this.”  Another huge indication of possible voter inclinations.

And then a friend sent this one:

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Pondering a possible eventuality, Alex Seitz-Wald and Benjy Sarlin write @nbcnews.com: “Hillary Clinton's Victory Prize: Congressional Investigations”

“If Donald Trump leaves the GOP divided after the election, a Hillary Clinton victory could bring the party back together, as Republicans and Democrats prepare for a flood of potential congressional investigations. 

“The daily drip of hacked emails from Wikileaks, the exposure of Clinton's email server and pay-for-play allegations about the Clinton Foundation may not cost her a victory in the current race, which has largely become a referendum on Trump's fitness for office. But the allegations won't magically disappear after Nov. 8 either, and Republicans are determined to cut short any potential honeymoon period. 

“In the last few weeks alone, dozens of House Republicans have demanded that a special prosecutor investigate the Clinton Foundation for possible conflicts of interest. Sen. Ted Cruz has called for a "serious criminal investigation" into a Democratic operative featured in a sting video by conservative activist James O'Keefe. And Speaker Paul Ryan promised "aggressive oversight work in the House" of an alleged "quid pro quo" deal between the FBI and the State Department over reclassifying an email on Clinton's private server. 

“Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who would likely serve as the chief antagonist of a second Clinton White House as chair the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News last week the "quid pro quo" claim alone was worth at least "four new hearings," claiming it was a "flashing red light of potential criminality." 

Thus, while the mainstream media speculates about a potential “landslide” victory for their favored candidate, it may not mean very much at all. Because, Republican majority’s in both houses of Congress may finally lead to long awaited criminal action and another Clinton impeachment, this one followed by her removal from office if elected.  

Raising the ongoing question once more: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys are reading this?    

 

That's it for today folks.     

Adios