Panicked Left: Russian Hackers Could Fake Election Fraud
Oct 21, 2016
RUSH: There are two stories. There is one story out that says this: “Trump’s Rigged Election Comments a ‘Gift to Dictators’, Say Africans.” And it cites Kenya where Obama’s cousin rejected an election result. So what they’re trying to do here with this story is say that Trump’s comments on the election being rigged are providing aid and comfort to African dictators. Trump is responsible, therefore, for African dictators who may seize even more power. Donald Trump’s responsible for this.
Then there is this story, and this is utterly shameless. I mean, this is Reuters. “Vote Authorities Warned to be Alert to Russian Hacks Faking Fraud: Officials.” Now, let me ask you a question here. Does Hillary Clinton think she’s gonna lose? Do these Democrats think they’re gonna lose? Why in the world is she and her media spending so much time establishing the possibility that the Russian government is trying to give the election to Trump?
First it’s Russia and their 17 independent intelligence agencies and probably 1,500 independent experts of both parties — isn’t that how this works? — who all agree that the Russians are responsible for hacking Podesta’s email and then giving it to Julian Assange at WikiLeaks. Must be really worried what is in those hacks. And Donna Brazile comes along and says, “I know what it means to be persecuted. I’m a Christian woman. You’re not gonna get it out of me, Kelly.”
So Donna Brazile’s able to get out of jail with a Christian card. Doesn’t work for Christian bakeries. Doesn’t work for Christian photographers, but Donna Brazile (imitating Brazile), “I’m a Christian; you can’t me ask this. I’m a Christian; you can’t accuse me of this. I’m a Christian; I can’t possibly be guilty of this. But I know what it means to be persecuted as a Christian woman.” Doesn’t work for bakeries, doesn’t work for photographers, doesn’t work for pizzerias.
But they’re spending a lot of time here establishing the possibility that the Russian government is gonna rig the election for Trump. But wait. At the same time they tell us that it’s not possible to engage in the amount of vote fraud that would be necessary to actually fake a presidential election. Charles Krauthammer has made this point. He’s right. Krauthammer’s made this, any number of people have made the point that the presidential election is so massive that it would be impossible to engage in enough fraud to actually change the results of a presidential election.
Now, that has not stopped the Democrats in 2004 accusing it of happening. This is one of us funniest elections in my life, 2004, horse face John Kerry loses, but the exit polls showed him winning, so when he ended up losing, a bunch of Democrats ran around and claimed that Kerry actually won because the exit polls said so, which must have meant the votes were fake. The votes had to be fraudulent. And Kerry said all it would have taken is a 50,000 vote swing in Ohio and I would have won. That’s all? 50,000? That’s a lot of votes to cheat.
And all of the establishment types, folks, are saying — and they’re saying this to ridicule Trump, don’t forget. Trump’s out there, he is saying that the election could be rigged. He’s saying it. And their rejoinder to that, after ridiculing him for thinking such a thing, is to then point out it’s not possible. You’ve heard it, I’ve heard it, they’re out there saying, “You couldn’t do it. Presidential election, too massive. I mean, there’s way too many polling places, the number of votes that we’re talking about, it’s just impossible to cheat that much.”
Then why are they afraid of the Russians doing it? Why are they afraid the Russians are rigging the election for Trump if it can’t be done? And the reason they say it can’t be done is because they obviously want to protect the integrity of the whole process. I mean, I totally understand them not coming out claiming you could do it. Can you imagine if these establishment types actually said, in response to Trump, “Well, you know what, these races, they could be fixed.”
Can you imagine the reaction to that? If anybody in the establishment, an elected official, media person, anybody, a Wall Street banker, if anybody came out, “Damn well these elections can be fixed,” can you imagine. So of course they have to say it’s not possible. I just find it’s contradictory and hypocritical because on the one hand over here they admonish Trump, “This is silly. You couldn’t fake, you couldn’t trick, you couldn’t rig a presidential election.”
And then we have this story from Reuters: “U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are warning that hackers with ties to Russia’s intelligence services could try to undermine the credibility of the presidential election by posting documents online purporting to show evidence of voter fraud.”
Could Obama and Hillary be any more obvious here? Credibility of the presidential election? They worry that the Russians, because the Russians are leaking the WikiLeaks emails of Podesta, that the Russians could post documents online showing evidence of voter fraud. Why? It’s not possible. You all keep telling us it’s not possible to rig something as large as a presidential election. And yet here’s one of their house organs, Reuters, with a story claiming that the Obama administration and the Hillary campaign are worried that the Russians are gonna — if you’re not quite sure what this is, let me give juts you a straight analogy.
What they’re claiming here is that at some point down the road before the election, some documents purporting to be from the Democrat Party, let’s say, are going to detail exactly how to cheat and win, say, Florida or win Ohio or win North Carolina. And so Obama and Hillary and Reuters and the media are warning us that this could happen.
Does this not wreak of paranoia? Because again, they keep telling us it isn’t possible, that Trump’s foolish, that Trump’s paranoid, that Trump’s a nutcase, that Trump needs to be in a straitjacket in an insane asylum in a padded cell. You can’t rig elections. And yet here’s Reuters, Obama and Hillary are really worried the Russians might leak documents purporting to claim that the Democrats have engaged in fraud. (laughing)
I wonder, how do they know? Again, this is one of these things, who would ever think of something like this? They may be doing this, if they could conceive that it could happen. The Russians here, the Russians there, the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, that movie back in the 1960s with Alan Arkin in it. Maybe the cover story is getting out early for what they really plan to do to discredit it before it happens.
Okay, so let’s say they plan on doing this. Okay. They know it’s gonna come out so they tell everybody be on the lookout from Russian hack so that when it does come out, everybody pooh-poohs it, “Ah, it’s just a Russian hack, they told us this was coming, nothing to see here,” after they’ve already done it. Why do I feel like this election’s just beginning?
RUSH: Let me ask you this question, folks. The polling data all shows Trump losing in a landslide, right? So what happens if Trump wins? Let’s say Trump wins a narrow victory, say gets 285 electoral votes or 280, 275, whatever. Do you think they’re just get sit there and accept it for the honor of the tradition of accepting the election results?
They’ve got themselves convinced, ’cause of their own polls, that they’re looking a landslide of Goldwater proportions here. They think Hillary may get 500 electoral votes. (laughing) Folks, there will be rioting election night, and we will witness the dignified and accepting tradition of going with the outcome of an election as we have come to expect.
By the way, James O’Keefe, Project Veritas, actually got a New York election official to admit how they engage in voter fraud in New York, where they win everything anyway. It’s a Democrat election official, and he happily explains how they cheat, in an undercover video. Even though they win everything in New York. Republicans may as well not even exist there.
RUSH: Here next is Ron in Tucson. You’re next, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Yes. Good morning, Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet, sir.
CALLER: I have a number of points to make. I don’t know if you’re gonna give me enough time, but in any case I would like to start with Hillary Clinton. Why should we believe Hillary Clinton that the Russians are meddling in the American election when she lied to us in regard to Benghazi when she told us one story and she told the real story to her daughter and to other head officials. That’s number one.
RUSH: It’s a good point.
CALLER: Item number two. If anybody is meddling in the election, believe it or not, America has meddled in the Israeli election when the White House and the State Department sent millions upon millions of dollars to Israel to be against Bibi Netanyahu —
RUSH: This is true!
CALLER: — his Regime and to vote against Bibi Netanyahu. He sent advisers, the White House sent advisers to Israel not to vote for Bibi Netanyahu. Now, that’s another thing. One more item that I would like to make a point, and that is on the Second Amendment. If Hillary wants to take away our Second Amendment, the right to have guns, why shouldn’t she take away also our pens, scissors, kitchen detergents, Drano, all of those things, they can kill. It’s about time —
RUSH: You left out the wheel. The wheel kills more people than any gun ever has.
CALLER: Yeah. You know, if we, the Jews during World War II, if we would have weapons, probably the outcome would be much different than it actually was.
RUSH: Very true. Very true, and if people had gotten with the program a little sooner. Well, look, Ron, I appreciate it. You got it all in. You got it all in. You were worried that I wouldn’t give you enough time, but you have the gift of brevity and the soul of wit, and so you made it within the constraints of the programming format with time to spare. Well done. He’s right. It was the Obama campaign team that was dispatched to Israel with money and expertise designed to overthrow Prime Minister Benghazi Netanyahu.
RUSH: By the way, folks, here’s another question. If it is apparently so easy for the Russians to hack the Democrat National Committee server and so easy for the Russians to hack John Podesta’s email, why didn’t Hillary use a secure server when at the State Department? Why did she use one of these basement homebrew jobs if the Russians are so damn good at hacking everything? It doesn’t seem like she cared much back then, but now the Russians are responsible for it all.