General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMoscow Mitch KNEW "The Fix Was In"
In case you're wondering why #MoscowMitchMcTreason blocked the #MerrickGarland nomination even when Hillary was considered a shoe-in who'd no doubt pick someone more progressive, it was because the stinking little #traitor knew the election was rigged for Trump.
The fix was in.
Link to tweet
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,702 posts)malaise
(269,157 posts)FakeNoose
(32,749 posts)Did Pootie tell him directly?
This needs to be investigated thoroughly.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,416 posts)Wonder if there were any instructions from Putin attached to the payments?
bearfan454
(6,697 posts)Russia discovered how easy it was to let greed overtake standing up for your country. Moscow Mitch and the rest of the repukes are cashing in on letting Russia interfere in our elections.
Mr.Bill
(24,319 posts)but my question is if they are so good with fixing elections, how did we do so well in Congressional races in 2018? Is it because they are only capable of fixing national races because of the electoral college and not good at the local elections?
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,416 posts)Rigging an election with a big enough margin to overcome a true grass roots wave would risk having gigantic wins where they should not happen. Any unforeseen, large turnout can therefore overwhelm ordinary cheating. You can only rig elections without fear if you have despotic power over the populace.
Eyeball_Kid
(7,434 posts)Big wins or big losses, reversed through hacking, would be easily tracked.
alwaysinasnit
(5,072 posts)Baltimike
(4,146 posts)Texin
(2,597 posts)There has been no action in the senate since 2018. Moscow Mitch has blocked everything before anything can be brought to a vote. By creating a legislative dead zone, they block Dems' efforts to enact productive legislation, and coupled with the talk of Impeachment, they were hoping/banking on that legislative blockaid by Moscow Mitch to blame it all on the Dems for doing nothing productive except trying to throw tRump out office.
I fully believe that they had every mechanism in their arsenal to rig the mid-terms if they controlled the state and/or local districts. Regardless of the far greater numbers of Democratic votes in 2018, they still could have rigged the races for the Rs. God knows, we now know (and suspected after 2016) that Putin and his FSB had the wherewithal - and rethugs - permission to do so.
bearfan454
(6,697 posts)the day of the midterms.
CrispyQ
(36,516 posts)The White House only takes hacking a few key states to impact the electoral college. I saw a documentary* last night about the 2016 election & the Russian influence via social media & it stated that about 70,000 people in four key states got Trump elected.
* "The Great Hack," on Netflix. Great discussion on data rights & how we should each have data rights as well as human rights. Check it out.
Johnyawl
(3,205 posts)...Moscow Mitch had already said that if Hillary wins he'd hold that seat open for 4 years.
spanone
(135,874 posts)KPN
(15,650 posts)not in this case. Two plus two always equals four even when it seems objectively unlikely. At a minimum, Moscow Mitch knew that despite all of the early polls showing a slam dunk for Hillary (against any R candidate) Putin's assistance was in place and gave them a reasonable chance.
Will we ever learn the facts? That's the only real question.
catbyte
(34,451 posts)MFGsunny
(2,356 posts)I mean, seriously, would Moscow Mitch ACTUALLY be waiting for Hillary to win??????
Botany
(70,582 posts)n/t
thesquanderer
(11,992 posts)A less nefarious explanation:
There was always a CHANCE Trump would win. But if he'd lost as expected, there would still be plenty of time between election day and Jan 20 of the following year (when Hillary would be sworn in) to confirm Garland and prevent Hillary from going with someone more progressive.
Having taken the stand he did before the election, there was no reason for him to change his mind until after the election. So, this is no evidence of a fix, it was the logical thing to do, from the perspective of someone who wanted the best chance of the least progressive nominee. He took a no-lose strategy, no matter how the election turned out.
JHB
(37,162 posts)...so Mich saw no upside to potentially confirming an Obama nominee.
The window for it, and IIRC Orrin Hatch said this explicitly, was that after a Hillary win they could approve Garland by telling their foamers that "Hillary would nominate someone worse", and by the next election said foamers would be on to something else and no one would hold their feet to the fire about Garland.
And a Trump win would let them steal the seat.
That's a political calculation that Mitch could make without Russian help.
stopdiggin
(11,361 posts)thesquanderer
(11,992 posts)Nor would Obama be likely to withdraw him in favor of another candidate, after repeatedly going to bat for what an outstanding justice Garland would be. What would be his rationale to make a change, how would that look?
stopdiggin
(11,361 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2019, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)
that Garland would no longer be the pick of the presumptive office holder. I know courtesy and respect are quaint, and somewhat dated, terms .. (and even more so 2 1/2 years on) I honestly don't know how it would play out. You might be quite right.
Baltimike
(4,146 posts)Botany
(70,582 posts)'U.S. spies slept' while Russia elected Trump, Russian politician says
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/09/12/russian-politician-american-intelligence-slept-russia-elected-president/660297001/
A Russian politician ridiculed the American intelligence community during a television appearance Sunday, saying it "slept through while Russia elected a new U.S. president."
Vyacheslav Nikonov, a member of the Duma Russia's parliament made the snide comment during a Sunday appearance on a Russian news program, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov.
"To achieve world dominance) the U.S. overextended themselves," Nikonov said, according to a translation from CNN. "Because the most recent tendencies, economical, military, even tendencies in the intelligence (services) which slept through while Russia elected a new U.S. president."
Baltimike
(4,146 posts)not admitting to the fact that they changed votes. Yes. Voting machine votes. It's like the moratorium on calling someone lying a liar that was all the rage in the early 2000's. (Hence Franken's book)
I have no idea why they think people will not vote if they know about the vote rigging and not that people won't bother to vote if they keep getting lied to about what went down
Botany
(70,582 posts)look @ the hardware and software of the operating systems for the voting machines and
central tabulators, send out all those spear phishing emails to election officials, exam the
cyber security of our voting systems, get inside information (data analytics) from the Trump
campaign, have an active presence in all 50 states, and steal all those voter d-bases and
not do anything like change the vote or remove voters from voter rolls is crazy.
stopdiggin
(11,361 posts)when that evidence is produced (or attested to by reliable authority) I will be happy to concede the point. Until then, I am content to follow (fairly closely) what LE and intelligence sources are telling me.
Farmer-Rick
(10,211 posts)But Trump is still a criminal.
The evidence is there just as described. We just don't want to accept it because it's not a smoking gun. Many a murder is solved without smoking gun evidence.
We may be unable to follow the full hacking of the vote count because Russian hackers have covered their tracks. If they are as good as our FBI thinks they are, Russia has hidden their footprint so well our counter espionage unit can't or won't find it.
Waiting for smoking gun evidence is just another way to hide the truth.
stopdiggin
(11,361 posts)is the definition of prejudice and injustice. (and, come to think of it, conspiracy and superstition as well) I don't think I'll be signing up.
--"We may be unable to follow the full hacking of the vote count because Russian hackers have covered their tracks. If they are as good as our FBI thinks they are, Russia has hidden their footprint so well our counter espionage unit can't or won't find it."--
To sum up .. "we can't find it, but we KNOW it happened". Okie dokie, then. But I'm not sure about Mothman or the Loch Ness Monster either. Cheers!
Farmer-Rick
(10,211 posts)There is just NOT smoking gun evidence that you think should be required. We have plenty of circumstantial evidence. Many a person has been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.
Botany listed all the evidence for you:
1. Russians looked at the hardware and software of the operating systems for every state's voting machines and central tabulators.
2. They sent out all those spear phishing emails to election officials.
3. Spies from Russia examined the cyber security of every states's voting systems.
4. They got inside information (data analytics) from the Trump campaign.
5. And they stole many of the states's voter databases.
That is pretty damning evidence. To have done all that but then stopped, to have acquired all the information necessary to switch votes, change counts and remove people from the voting rolls so those people got placebo ballots and their votes did not get counted. To have gone to the edge and NOT change votes or manipulate counts is kind of useless and most reasonable people would NOT believe it.
stopdiggin
(11,361 posts)and zero evidence of the things you infer MUST have happened.
--"to switch votes, change counts and remove people from the voting rolls so .."--
Where did this actually happen?
Isn't interesting that we were able to find forensics (and testimony) for the things you listed (that we all acknowledge happened) .. and yet silence on the score of actual switched/changed votes? "Coulda'/woulda/shoulda" is inference not proof. Your belief that something "must have" happened cannot stand in the place of evidence of what DID happen.
Sorry, Rick .. looks like we're just not gonna' agree on this one. You're entitled to your opinion (and it looks like you've got plenty of company) but I'm still waiting for something that looks like proof.
Farmer-Rick
(10,211 posts)But if you feel there is Not enough evidence to be convinced then that's fine. We all have to decide for ourselves what is sufficient evidence to believe.
I don't believe in any god because there is insufficient evidence of any such supernatural being. So, I respect your need for significantly higher standards of evidence.
marieo1
(1,402 posts)He definitely is 'Moscow Mitch' - he has never in his life done one good thing for our country - just like DJT- Moscow Mitch, Moscow Mitch, Moscow Mitch - describes him to a T and is a honest and realistic name for him. He can say otherwise all he wants but we all have been watching and listening to him for many years and the American people know. He has gone negative on ALL bills that will help us - the American people. He has always been a piece of crap!!
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)Response to Pepsidog (Reply #24)
maddiemom This message was self-deleted by its author.
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)renate
(13,776 posts)They weren't subtle about it, either.
And razor-thin margins (but just enough!) in the three states they needed? Winning the electoral college by 70,000 votes and losing the popular vote by THREE MILLION? Gee, what a surprise.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,022 posts)Awful, but spot on.
oasis
(49,408 posts)Meadowoak
(5,559 posts)oasis
(49,408 posts)Grasswire2
(13,571 posts)He's surprised at the attention.
His whole feed is great. He makes freeway signs and puts them up.
volstork
(5,403 posts)I was suspicious from the moment he stonewalled Merrill Garland. Crystal clear.
Id love for the little shits dirty laundry to be plastered in every front page in the world.
dawnie51
(959 posts)and I have thought this from the jump. He's a POS.
trof
(54,256 posts)Sorry.
It's a compulsion.
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)diva77
(7,656 posts)UpInArms
(51,284 posts)Ive been saying it for quite a while now ...
I thought something was stinking to high heaven when he blocked it, saying the next president should nominate... HTF could he have been so certain that Hillary would not be that President?
ReformedGOPer
(478 posts)Why would the turtle ever trust the new justice to the new president, unless he knew how it was going to go.
bucolic_frolic
(43,287 posts)There is no wiggle room for another explanation
Kid Berwyn
(14,958 posts)If there are tapes, NSA has them. And thus Ratcliffe is sent after them.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that argument fails.
Also, had Clinton been elected McConnell could have gotten Garland confirmed in the time between the election and the time Clinton took office if he desired to do so.
So from a game theory prospective it was a Win-Draw strategy:
Trump wins a Republican nominee takes the court.
Trump loses either you confirm Garland anyway or continue saying no for 4 more years.
jg10003
(976 posts)The interviewer was asking questions that presumed Clinton would win. Conway said "I think we're going to win. We have friends who are going to win this for us." I remember a sudden feeling of foreboding and fear. I thought "who are these friends? Why does this person, who always sounds like a clown, suddenly sound like she knows something?"
shraby
(21,946 posts)Garland?
No other reason.
Timmygoat
(779 posts)Do not stop calling him Moscow Mitch, I love how it gets under his skin. Draft dodger Donald has made a career of calling people names, let them have a taste of their own medicine.
Bluepinky
(2,276 posts)The Repubs have been playing the long game. Take over all three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial. Game over.