Connect with us

News

Report: Obama had a plan in case Trump lost the election and wouldn’t accept the results

Published

on

No, he wasn’t going to drone him or anything like that.

Although … I don’t know. Obama did love his drones.

He had a plan for what to do before the drones might be needed, let’s say.

The Obama White House plan, according to interviews with [Ben] Rhodes and Jen Psaki, Obama’s communications director, called for congressional Republicans, former presidents, and former Cabinet-level officials including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, to try and forestall a political crisis by validating the election result. In the event that Trump tried to dispute a Clinton victory, they would affirm the result as well as the conclusions reached by the U.S. intelligence community that Russian interference in the election sought to favor Trump, and not Clinton. Some Republicans were already aware of Russian interference from intelligence briefings given to leaders from both parties during the chaotic months before the election. “We wanted to handle the Russia information in a way that was as bipartisan as possible,” Rhodes said…

Rhodes said he didn’t know how Trump would respond to impeachment. “It’s a really interesting question,” he said. “At a minimum, he could choose to implore his supporters not to accept the result. Given that 30 to 35 percent of the country believes whatever he says, and his enormous public megaphone, you could foresee a scenario where that would lead to a fairly worrisome political situation.”

Here’s something I wrote three weeks before the election in 2016, expecting two wars to break out on the right if Trump lost, as seemed likely. The big war would be the ideological struggle between conservatives and populist-nationalists, which is going on even now in a low-key way and will eventually reach a higher key after Trump. The other war would focus on the results on Election Night:

The smaller war, which will be shorter, will be fought over whether Clinton’s victory was legitimate or not. There may be surprises among the combatants in the small war: Mike Pence or Kellyanne Conway, both of whom have futures in the traditional GOP, may end up arguing that Clinton’s win was on the level. So will Trump-supporting Republican governors like Rick Scott, who’ll be forced to vouch for the credibility of Florida’s results. On the other side, Trump and his diehard fan base, including parts of conservative media like Hannity’s show, will dismiss everyone who accepts the election results as collaborationists with an illegitimate regime. That’ll complicate things for the GOP caucuses in the House and Senate: Some Republicans will fear being primaried if they defend Clinton’s right to govern or, worse, if they try to compromise with her on legislation. And there’ll be some Republican voters caught in the middle who want a robust GOP resistance to Democrats in Congress but who also think it’s stupid to go on whining about “rigging,” especially if Clinton wins in a landslide. You’re going to see, in other words, a splintering on the right on basic questions of the opposition’s legitimacy, not just on what direction the party should take. That should make the coming sh*tshow within the party extra zesty.

A Clinton landslide would have been hard for Trump to explain away as a matter of vote-rigging but a shockingly narrow Clinton victory would have been much easier, and we almost ended up with that exact scenario. A little tilt in Florida and Pennsylvania and Michigan to the left and citizen Trump might still be out there every week on Fox insisting that the Democrats stole the election for Hillary. The Republican Senate majority would have faced tremendous pressure from the base to roadblock her SCOTUS nominees indefinitely on grounds that they were appointed by an illegitimate president. (They might have done that even if she’d won handily, frankly.) Legislative compromise might have been impossible, to the extent it wouldn’t have been under any circumstances.

The Obama plan to recruit congressional Republicans to vouch for the election results would have had some success in the event of a Clinton landslide but any Republican who vouched for a narrow Clinton win would have been deemed a RINO and a traitor and a “deep-stater” or whatever and targeted for primaries. Certainly old-guard Republicans like the Bushes and Powell and Rice would have done their part to declare Hillary the winner, and some Republican voters would have been persuaded by that, but not the base. The people caught in the tightest vice would have been next-gen officeholders like Cruz, Rubio, and Haley. They would have wanted to validate Clinton’s win, if only to pronounce Trumpism officially dead and to dump it into a ditch ahead of a conservative revival. But they couldn’t have. Doing so might have ended their careers by infuriating populists who refused to tolerate siding with Them instead of Us.

Even a neutral institutional arbiter declaring Clinton the winner probably wouldn’t have cut it. James Comey’s seal of approval on the results as up-and-up only would have reminded righties that he had it in his power the previous summer to charge Hillary for mishandling classified information and gave her a pass despite probable cause existing under the plain text of the statute. “Comey’s in the tank for Democrats,” righties would have said. “He wants to be FBI director forever. You can’t trust him.” So the FBI’s validation wouldn’t have worked either.

Needless to say, Fox and most of righty media would have dined out on the “rigged election” theory for years. Which raises the question: What if Trump loses narrowly in 2020? You know he’s not going to bless an unfavorable outcome as “fair.” There’ll be some insinuation of cheating, probably involving hordes of illegal aliens somehow voting in the millions without detection. It’ll be harder for him in 2020 to pull off the “rigged” spin, though, for the simple reason that he and not Obama will be in charge of the executive branch when the votes are counted. Rationally, that should make no difference: It’s the states that count the votes, not the feds, so who the president is doesn’t matter. But if you’re inclined to embrace a conspiracy theory, it’s obviously easier to imagine Obama somehow using the power of his office to tweak the vote totals against Trump than it is to imagine Trump doing so. Plus, if Trump were to lose in 2020 I think plenty of his own deputies would vouch for the integrity of the election — people in a position to know like Chris Wray and Dan Coats, plus other cabinet secretaries like Mattis whose duties don’t bear directly on elections but who are respected by Trump’s fans. There’ll still be plenty of Trump supporters who believe the outcome was rigged but it’s simply harder for Trump to make that sale having served four years in office. The power of the “rigged” message in 2016 would have rested on the perception that establishmentarians might do anything, up to and including vote-tampering, to keep the uncouth populist outsider from coming to Washington and messing with their swampy rackets. That argument doesn’t work once Trump has actually won and done a full term. Or at least, it doesn’t work nearly as well.

Exit question: Is there *anyone* besides Trump himself with enough cred among Trump voters that he or she might convince populists a Trump defeat in 2020 is legit by vouching for the vote totals? The only person I can think of with even a chance to do so is Mattis, and even he wouldn’t have much sway. No one with any populist pull, like the stars of conservative media, would go anywhere near crossing the base on something it wanted to believe as badly as that Trump had been cheated out of reelection.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

The robot dog that will murder you will also dance on your grave

Published

on

By

To cleanse the palate, obviously I don’t know if there’ll be “graves” as such after the robot apocalypse. I assume it’ll depend on their olfactory capabilities. If they’re not equipped to detect scent, maybe the ‘bots will just leave us where we lie to decay in the sun, our streets transformed into rivers of putrefied viscera from the sheer mass of leaking carcasses.

It’s my great privilege to share thoughts like that with you at the end of a long day.

I’m curious about what possessed Boston Dynamics to put this clip together. Could be nothing more than boredom or a creative way to show off Spot’s motor skills. But I wonder if all the freaky-deaky videos of humanoid robots demonstrating ever more impressive feats of mobility has created a strange sort of PR problem for them. They don’t want every promo they do to seem menacing, however inadvertently. Soon they’ll have people breaking into their factory, trying to stop them before they build the first T-800. Time to do something whimsical instead.

This thing is set to go on sale next year, by the way. Not to everyday consumers; the price tag will likely ensure that it remains a corporate plaything. But you’ll be seeing them around sooner than you think. Plus, some ultra-rich tech bros are destined to buy them and show them off as look-what-I-got novelties. We all know who the first one will be.

Weird but true: In a few decades’ time, this thing shaking its ass in your face as it does a victory twerk might be the last thing you ever see.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

WOW! Claire McCaskill Speaks Out After Project Veritas Reveals She’s a Complete Fraud — Lies and Blames Hawley (VIDEO)

Published

on

By

James O’Keefe strikes again!

On Monday evening, Project Veritas released an undercover video of endangered Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill admitting to being deceptive about her stance on firearms and immigration policies.

McCaskill is a red-state Democrat Senator so she has to appear pro 2nd Amendment to her constituents because Missourians love their guns.

Claire McCaskill’s staffers were also caught on video saying she puts on a moderate front to get the Republican votes.

The top staffer then continued saying McCaskill believes everything Obama does.

THIS WAS A DEVASTATING VIDEO! Claire McCaskill was COMPLETELY EXPOSED!

Senator McCaskill’s staffers admitted she is pro-DACA, pro-DREAMERS and against the border wall even though she runs ads to the contrary claiming she is strong on border security.
The Project Veritas Video has been viewed over 267,000 times so far!

On Tuesday morning Claire McCaskill responded to the stunning revelations.
McCaskill went on Ozarks First to try to dig herself out of this deep hole.


Claire lied some more, blamed Josh Hawley for the undercover video.

Senator McCaskill: I’ve been very up front about all my positions. I remember this person was trying to get me to say something different than what my positions are… It is startling that Josh Hawley would be part of fraudulently embedding something in my campaign.

You Might Like

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Coincidence or corruption? In Andrew Cuomo’s government it’s hard to tell

Published

on

By

Given the parade of people in the orbit of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo who have recently either been shipped off to jail or come under investigation, it’s amazing that none of the dirt ever sticks to Cuomo himself. How does he account for the various people who funneled money toward his campaign, and then were later discovered to have benefitted from state government “generosity” and wound up in handcuffs? It’s all just a coincidence.

Today we’re hearing news of yet another of these amazing coincidences. This story starts with a situation we first covered more than a year ago and it dealt with some donors who helped Cuomo out during his 2014 campaign. A medical corporation named Crystal Run Healthcare was run by a few people who had funneled more than $400K to Cuomo’s campaigns over the previous four years. When the “Buffalo Billion” was announced (a plan to invest a billion dollars of taxpayer money into projects creating jobs in the western, upstate region) Crytal Run was at the front of the line. They wound up receiving more than $25M dollars for two new medical centers.

But there were some fishy elements to the story. First of all, they had actually broken ground on both of those new projects six months before the grants were even announced or applications were being taken. It’s almost as if they knew they had the money coming from somewhere. Then we found out that the Crystal Run had coughed up a flurry of maximum donations only weeks before the checks to them were cut. In addition to that, there was a meeting held less than two weeks after the announcement of the grants where Crystal Run executives met with state officials, including a top aide from inside Cuomo’s office.

How did Cuomo explain it? It was all just a happy coincidence and the meeting didn’t matter because they didn’t even talk about the grants. The meeting was about Medicaid.

But now the local press has gotten hold of emails from Crystal Run showing that they did indeed discuss their two new developments and the grants, and that the state representatives at the meeting were “very receptive” to their requests. (NY Post)

Now, despite earlier denials from everyone involved, it turns out company execs got a private sitdown with top state officials in 2015, just 12 days after Albany started seeking applications for $1.2 billion in development grants. Crystal Run wound up with $25.4 million of that (the only for-profit company to qualify) for two projects.

Team Cuomo insists those projects never even got mentioned at the meeting, saying it was only about Medicaid. Yet the Albany Times Union reports that an e-mail sent two weeks later by Crystal Run’s chief legal officer stressed that company execs had “shared our vision for growth,” including the two “expansions,” with the health commissioner and a top aide who worked in Cuomo’s office.

Both officials, the e-mail noted, “were, obviously, supportive, as we are bringing real jobs to real people” — and had agreed that “further discussion was warranted” with the state economic-development agency “at the highest levels.”

How much more evidence do we need at this point? Cuomo’s spokespeople obviously lied about what went on at that meeting. They have records from the company who benefitted from it after making massive contributions. (Two of the people involved in organizing these meetings, donations, and windfalls have already been convicted or indicted on related charges.) And yet Andrew Cuomo continues to insist that all the grants were handled fairly and above board. These are all just amazing coincidences. And somehow, while his closest aides head off to the crowbar motel, Cuomo floats along and prosecutors can’t seem to lay a glove on him. On top of that, he’s on track to cruise to electoral victory for another four years in office.

I guess that’s just a happy coincidence too, eh?

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close