How Much Fraud Is Enough?

The Senate held hearings on the 2020 election with the underlying premise whether all the fraud and problems could have affected the outcome of the election?

Or to rephrase my question, how much fraud is too much?

The thrust of this is: only if the apparent fraud would have made a difference in the outcome is it a real problem. If not, it does not matter. So Democrats assert it was not too much fraud for their tolerance. Have some confidence in that? I don’t think so.

To make matters worse, you have two different sides saying two completely different things. On one side you have people claiming this was the most fair and secure election in history. On the other, people are saying it is the most fraud-plagued election with serious Constitutional issues ever. Of course both cannot be right.

The former assumption is so far off, no one could reasonably believe that.

Actually, to deny fraud took place is conspicuous enough. But to claim the election was fraud-free and perfect is so far from any rational logic and wreaks with deception.

Why do Democrats have to recoil back to the position that no fraud existed at all? Chuck Schumer now even dubs it our wonderful democracy. Schumer on the Senate Floor:

“When is this nonsense, so detrimental to our democracy, going to end? When? It’s already deeply irresponsible for my Republican colleagues, many of them, to stay silent about President Trump’s deliberate attempts to poison Americans’ faith in our elections.” /… [faith in elections??]

“So in conclusion, Chairman Johnson should call off this ridiculous charade of a Senate hearing, immediately. And if he won’t, Leader McConnell should intervene to ensure that the Committee does not indulge such quackery and conspiracy theories. And he should acknowledge the results of the elections and make clear it’s time to move on, just as he was happy to do so when the shoe was on the other foot. Doing otherwise will add fuel to the fire that is undermining faith in our wonderful democracy.“

For four years they were not calling it wonderful or anything except at risk, insecure and in jeopardy. Now it is a paragon of legitimacy — not a shred of suspicion or criminality.

“Our wonderful democracy“….after four years of attacking it at the core.

It is so disingenuous to deny the problems and fraud. So then Dems fall back on their other excuse that nothing shows the outcome would be different. Yet that is all around us.

Why should the qualifier of fraud be whether it was enough or not enough to change their results? The problems abound. Shouldn’t chronic fraud and problems be enough?

But how much fraud is enough is absolutely the wrong basis for election integrity, or our confidence in it. I’m not confident that America has a tolerance for election fraud.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Perennial Bias At Work

Our government used the pretext of Russia to spy on a presidential campaign. And it parlayed that “investigation” into the presidency after Trump entered office.

• The IG Horowitz report declares it found no documented or admitted political bias in the cause of the investigation.
• It found 16- 17 problems with how the investigation was handled.
• Horowitz testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that no one who touched this entire investigation should feel vindicated.
• It found fraud committed in the FISA process.
• The investigation used a dirty Russian-based dossier, paid for bu a political campaign, employing a foreign agent, as evidence in a FISA court for wiretapping + surveillance.

The question of political bias is almost moot now. Does it matter or is it relevant? An investigation has inherent bias, since the purpose is that someone probably did something wrong. But they qualify political bias as a possible concern.. I am concerned about both.

What matters is what they did, errors and all. The central reason political bias seems to matter is based on whether it should have started or not. And was it a basis for the investigation? Was it the purpose of it?

So did we really expect them to call the investigation unjustified? That would have been an automatic indictment on everything they did. It would be a glaring admission. It is doubtful even an Inspector General would be willing to do that.

Putting that bias question aside, the whole rest of the process which followed is an indictment on the cause of that investigation. Why break laws, use sinister conduct or act with malfeasance in investigating a justifiable cause?

And all that conduct happened to be against Trump.

So maybe too much emphasis is placed on whether there was provable political bias in the contamination of the decision to investigate? At least it was all around it. Shouldn’t there be a necessary attempt to eliminate bias? But that is not what we saw.

Back to what we citizen voters think. Much was made about our interpretation of inherent bias in the investigation. Though we had probable cause to suspect and confirm bias in the process. In fact, it almost screamed bias. That no one would have heard those screams would be irresponsible. How could we not see it?

All we heard since it began, and continued in its various forms, is that the FBI and its investigation is above reproach. But that is not what we saw. We saw a natural cause for bias alarm. Yet that we even questioned the FBI or basis of it was the problem.

The whole Russia meddling problem in the election had little to do with Trump. They did not seem as interested in investigating Russian meddling as they were in investigating Trump collaboration. Russia was the predicate to investigate Trump.

Now if we had fraud in the investigating itself, we certainly had it in spades in the media reporting all along. It amplified whatever government was doing, both publicly and behind closed doors. You could label the reason for it as political bias. But does it matter? The media were doing what they were doing. Do we have to prove what effect their political bias had in order to validate whether it existed? That would seem absurd.

Yet the entire cabal boils down to that one simple fact: our Government used Russia as a pretext to investigate Trump, in an election and after. Period. Nothing changes that.

But Cardinal Comey calls our fears, analysis, criticisms and conclusions “all made up.“

Right Ring | Bullright

Red Scare strikes the Left

After being deemed albeit irrelevant by Obama in 2012, the Kremlin worry is back. This time inflicting the Left and whipping them into a frenzy.

This time Hillary is leading the anti-Russia charge. Reset to Red Scare. But what won’t she do to try to pull off her anointing, even if she has to use Russia to accomplish it?

The new Red Scare? Russia ups role in world events, US elections

(CNN)The Cold War was supposed to have ended a quarter of a century ago.
But Russia is commanding center stage in a presidential election for the first time in decades and President Vladimir Putin is being portrayed as a sinister puppeteer looming over the bitter contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.

Democrats have blamed him for orchestrating a huge cyberespionage operation using stolen and leaked emails to sow chaos and distrust in America’s democratic process ahead of November’s election. Putin’s even been accused of cultivating one of the candidates in the election — Trump — as an unwitting agent to further his quest to strangle US global power.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/putin-trump-obama-clinton-russia/index.html?sr=twCNN091516putin-trump-obama-clinton-russia0454PMVODtop

So the progressive, Marxist Left has found a useful whipping post along with Trump. But of course it is only for campaign election purposes. At the very same time, Kerry was making a “cease fire” deal on Syria.

Obama, after all, followed the Kremlin footsteps on Syria. Leading from behind the iron kurtain. They couldn’t have asked for a better stooge. And Obama promised Medvedev and Putin “flexibility” in 2012. Now they are collecting.

Suddenly, the Leftists awoke to see Russia scare everywhere. Gee, I wonder what could have sparked that? Now they see Russia directly involved in our election.

Well, that’s odd, considering Obama and the entire left mocked Trump for mentioning election fraud problems in our system. In a grand speech from the White House, Obama said Trump didn’t even have a valid concern until after the election.

Finally, Hillary found something other than the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy to blame. Russia has already coined a new term for it called Russiaphobia.

Now the Red Scare is back with a vengence, temporarily anyway. Hackers in Russia have nothing over the political hacks here on the left. Maybe Russia will start running ads?

The Spook that Never Was

How an EPA employee stole $900K by pretending to be a CIA agent

BY: CJ Ciaramella — Free Beacon
October 2, 2013 12:24 pm

The strange and sordid saga of John Beale, a top Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official who defrauded the federal government out of nearly $900,000, has by turns outraged, flabbergasted, and sickened members of Congress, but on Tuesday it achieved something even rarer: It left them speechless.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the head of the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, had asked one of Beale’s former supervisors, Robert Brenner, if he had seen Beale lately.

“I’ve seen Mr. Beale,” Brenner testified, pausing to chew over his next sentence. “Well, I’ve seen him a lot over the last two weeks. He’s renting out his home, so he’s staying in my guest house right now.”

For a brief moment, the oversight committee, usually full of bluster, was left gob smacked.

Over the course of two congressional hearings Monday and Tuesday, new details emerged about Beale, a former top EPA official who over the course of 13 years bilked the agency out hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraudulent travel vouchers and illegal bonuses. Along the way, Beale falsely claimed to be an agent for the Central Intelligence Agency, a Vietnam War veteran, and remained on payroll for over a year after a retirement party on a Potomac dinner cruise.

Overall, Beale spent two and a half years absent from work while still getting paid. According to investigators, he committed time card fraud, travel fraud, impersonated a federal agent, and misused a government passport, among other crimes.

In the House oversight hearing, Issa noted that if Beale had actually retired, he would have gotten away scot-free.

“That is 100 percent correct,” Sullivan replied.

“I guess we should be happy he got greedy,” Issa said.

http://freebeacon.com/the-spook-that-never-was/

What a sordid affair and going on for decades. What does it take to get to the bottom of things?