Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

I wanted to do recounts but for both candidates, not a one sided recount. We have more than strong evidence of votor fraud via illegals voting now.
I think for us to have recounts, we can't just do the States that benefit Clinton. So, I see what Trump is doing is just trying to quell the one sided recount.

Ex-ICE Agent: I 'Routinely' Arrested Illegal Immigrants with Voter Registrations

"I worked in six locations across the United States. I probably arrested more than 1,000 illegal aliens in my career and I routinely encountered people who were in possession of voter registration cards. And as a part of my interview of them when they were arrested, I would ask them, "Do you or have you voted?' and often, I would get the answer 'yes,'" he explained.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

I wanted to do recounts but for both candidates, not a one sided recount. We have more than strong evidence of votor fraud via illegals voting now.
I think for us to have recounts, we can't just do the States that benefit Clinton. So, I see what Trump is doing is just trying to quell the one sided recount.

Ex-ICE Agent: I 'Routinely' Arrested Illegal Immigrants with Voter Registrations

"I worked in six locations across the United States. I probably arrested more than 1,000 illegal aliens in my career and I routinely encountered people who were in possession of voter registration cards. And as a part of my interview of them when they were arrested, I would ask them, "Do you or have you voted?' and often, I would get the answer 'yes,'" he explained.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/30/ice-agent-counterfeit-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigration-voters-registration-elections

What do you think would be a better first step towards getting a real recount in every state?
A) starting with Wisconsin and Michigan and then, if the results warrant it, pressuring politicians to do the rest of the states? Or
B) stopping the recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan, and never looking into any state's voting.

Option B is a zero percent chance. That's just burying whatever possible evidence might exist. Option A is clearly higher than a zero percent chance. Keep in mind that no matter how much you and I both want to do all 50 states right now, that option simply is not on the table. There is no direct immediate path to doing that. No one with any power in the country is willing to do that right now. We have to either go indirectly through option A or abandon any hope of verifying the vote. Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not asking if you like it. I don't like the fact that option A is the only check on our democracy that we have but it still is the only one.

How much of the “news” is fake? How much of reality is “real”? After an election cycle driven by lies, delusions and propaganda — including lies about lies, multiple layers of fake news and meta-fake news — we are about to install a fake president, elected by way of the machineries of fake democracy.

The country that elected him is fake too, at least in the sense that the voters who supported Donald Trump largely inhabit an imaginary America, or at least want to. They think it’s an America that used to exist, one they heard about from their fathers and grandfathers and have always longed to go back to. It’s not.

Their America is an illusion that has been constructed and fed to them through the plastic umbilicus of Fox News and right-wing social media to explain the anger and disenfranchisement and economic dislocation and loss of relative privilege they feel. All of which are real, if not necessarily honorable; it represents the height of liberal uselessness to keep on quarreling about whether Trump’s fabled “white working class” suffers real economic pain or is just a cesspool of racism.

That argument is really about other things, to be sure: It’s about whether the Democratic Party — whose long-promised era of permanent demographic hegemony and middle-class multiculturalism keeps being delayed into the indefinite future, defeat after defeat after defeat — requires a major reconstruction or just a little cosmetic surgery. Meanwhile, out in the pseudo-reality of Trumpian America, racial resentment and economic suffering are so profoundly intertwined that there’s no way to disentangle them.

Arguments that the so-called left should pretty much ignore the deplorables who keep on voting against their own interests, or should abandon “identity politics” in quest of some middle-road economic populism that blends Bill Clinton and FDR, are both missing the point. In a nation where a candidate who won the popular vote by roughly 2.5 million did not win the election, we are no longer dealing with reality, at least as it used to exist.

Hillary Clinton was the ultimate Establishment candidate facing the ultimate outsider, and also a quintessential old-media personality facing a veritable Voldemort of social media. Given that, she came pretty damn close to pulling it off. But Clinton was also a candidate from reality facing a shimmering celebrity avatar, a clownish prankster who took physical form in our universe but who could say anything and do anything because he was self-evidently not real. That disadvantage proved impossible to overcome.

Furthermore, Trump’s supporters may be delusional and misguided, but they aren’t half as dumb as they often look to “coastal elites.” Many of them understood, consciously or otherwise, that his incoherent promises could not be taken literally and that his outrageous personality did not reflect the realm of reality. They were sick of reality, and you can’t entirely blame them. For lots of people in “middle America” (the term is patronizing, but let’s move on) reality has been so debased, or so much replaced, as to seem valueless.

If reality means lives of pointless service-sector drudgery, downward mobility or stagnation, fast-food dinners, opioid addiction and traffic jams, then escape into fantasy seems forgivable. Donald Trump is a creature of the nurturing electronic cocoon that disrupts or replaces reality, an overlord of consumerism. (He is not in any meaningful sense a “capitalist.” Capitalists produce things, in the real world.) To paraphrase Michael Moore, Trump represented a historic opportunity to extend a giant middle finger to reality itself, and to the forces that have rendered it so dismal.

When I suggested a few weeks ago that Trump’s worldview resembled the narcissistic simulated universe of “The Matrix,” I had no idea how far the analogy would go. His election represents the moment when roughly half our voting population — slightly less than that, to be fair — spoke out clearly: Give us the blue pill! That’s the one where you wake up in your beds and believe whatever you want to believe, leaving reality behind. If onetime movie star Ronald Reagan was the first postmodern president (the word still meant something back then), Trump will be the first post-reality president.

That more or less explains my problem with the Jill Stein recounts and the faithless-elector dreamers and the people who write to me saying that Salon should not use the term “president-elect” to describe Trump because it isn’t accurate until the Electoral College convenes on Dec. 19 and for the love of God, he can still be stopped. Such people are clinging to the norms and standards of an outdated reality; they are almost as deluded as the Trump voters, and more overtly pathetic.

Somehow the light of reason and the Enlightenment wisdom of the Founding Fathers can remedy this situation, they tell us. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson didn’t agree on much, but they wouldn’t have wanted an ignorant buffoon and obvious demagogue elected over a competent states(wo)man who got more votes, thanks entirely to the flukes of national geography and demographic division. The authors of the Constitution gave the Electoral College full autonomy to override such an outcome.

I’ve already bored myself half to death trying to convey that stupid argument fairly: The problem isn’t that it’s untrue but that it is hilariously irrelevant. All the greatest constitutional minds at Harvard Law can’t argue America out of the Matrix. Furthermore, try to imagine what would happen if they could. If recounts in all three of those Rust Belt states somehow reversed the results, or if 270 electors contrived to vote for Clinton or Mitt Romney or, I don’t know, some David Brooks-approved “centrist” from Central Casting, what would the aftermath of that event look like among a population whose storm windows are already rattling dangerously in the wind? Do you even want to live through that? An America where such a constitutional antidote might restore our collective sanity is even more imaginary than the one Trump force-fed his supporters.

On the unhinged outer fringes of “this can’t have happened” liberal denialism, we find the thesis that the Russians are to blame for Trump, which feels like a grotesque parody of right-wing paranoia about Communism, circa 1959. There are certainly websites that circulate pro-Russian propaganda, just as there are sites that spread every other possible variety. But the idea that a sinister campaign of “fake news” and calculated leaks sponsored by Vladimir Putin sank Clinton and got Trump elected rests atop a pyramid of logical fallacies and unproven assertions, most prominently the premise that anyone who criticized Clinton’s hawkish foreign-policy agenda or her ties to Wall Street — indeed, anyone who criticized mainstream political orthodoxy in any way — could only be a Putinite tool or a “useful idiot.” (Given that, I was slightly disappointed that Salon did not end up on the red-scare list of supposed Russian propaganda sites compiled by anonymous internet loons, alongside CounterPunch, Truthdig, the Drudge Report and dozens of others. What did we do wrong?)

Last week in this space, I suggested that the path of political responsibility, in this time of permanent national emergency, is to take the parallels with Germany in the early 1930s seriously. There are obvious differences. Trump is nowhere near being Hitler and the mass of people behind him have nowhere near the organization or discipline to be the Nazi Party. Some of them halfway wish they did, perhaps, but they all want other people to do the hard work of concentration camps and genocide and marching around with torches. They stand ready to live-tweet that stuff as it happens.

In pragmatic terms, I believe we must behave as if democracy were in dire and perhaps terminal peril, and as if this might be the moment when our two-century-plus experiment in republican self-government tips over into squishy, soft-focus and nearly content-free fascism. But even that analysis, on reflection, feels too limited. It’s too closely tied to the vanquished world of reality, the world where history mattered and where actions were understood to have consequences. The world of context.

Because we seem to have arrived now at the moment imagined by cultural critic George W. S. Trow in a memorable essay called “Within the Context of No-Context,” which was published 36 years ago in the New Yorker and became the basis for a book of the same title. Coincidentally or otherwise, Trow’s original article appeared in the same month Ronald Reagan was elected president.

Trow described a process of cultural devolution in which history, previously “the record of growth, conflict, and destruction,” had become a chronicle of quantifiable marketing, “the record of the expression of demographically significant preferences.” In this new era of no-history, “nothing was judged — only counted,” and old-fashioned qualities like the “power of judging” and the “refining of preferences” were deemed unnecessary. “The preferences of a child,” he wrote, “carried as much weight as the preferences of an adult. . . . The most powerful men were those who most effectively used the power of adult competence to enforce childish agreements.” He did not know we would one day elect a president with the vocabulary of a middle-school child. (Some say fourth-grade, others say fifth.)

Trow’s entire essay reads as eerily prefigurative from this distance. I had been meaning to give it a read ever since election night, and now I know why I felt reluctant. If his dark utterances about the meaninglessness of politics felt a bit too apocalyptic for 1980, they don’t feel that way now. If his jeremiad against television — as “the force of no-history,” a medium with a uniform and unvarying scale where “the trivial is raised up to power” and “the powerful is lowered toward the trivial” — seemed overly sweeping at the time, it describes the political effect of Internet discourse and social media with precision.

Here is Trow’s opening paragraph. Reading it again sent chills down my spine:

Wonder was the grace of the country. Any action could be justified by that: the wonder it was rooted in. Period followed period, and finally the wonder was that things could be built so big. Bridges, skyscrapers, fortunes, all having a life first in the marketplace, still drew on the force of wonder. But then a moment’s quiet. What was it now that was built so big? Only the marketplace itself. Could there be wonder in that? The size of the con?

Undoing the Trumpian moment and combating Trumpism is not a matter of enforcing the Constitution or reforming the Electoral College or even about fighting against policies redolent of fascism, although those things won’t hurt. It’s about escaping the Matrix. It’s about undoing the wonder of the con. It’s about asserting that there is a reality to return to and to wonder at, a place of earth and sky and human life. We have to convince ourselves that is true before we can convince others

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

I wanted to do recounts but for both candidates, not a one sided recount. We have more than strong evidence of votor fraud via illegals voting now.
I think for us to have recounts, we can't just do the States that benefit Clinton. So, I see what Trump is doing is just trying to quell the one sided recount.

Ex-ICE Agent: I 'Routinely' Arrested Illegal Immigrants with Voter Registrations

"I worked in six locations across the United States. I probably arrested more than 1,000 illegal aliens in my career and I routinely encountered people who were in possession of voter registration cards. And as a part of my interview of them when they were arrested, I would ask them, "Do you or have you voted?' and often, I would get the answer 'yes,'" he explained.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/30/ice-agent-counterfeit-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigration-voters-registration-elections

Hilarious...This guy routinely arresting illegals with voter registrations cards..I don't even know what the card looks like..There must be stations located in the desert with stacks of voter registration cards that illegals in all states are getting their hands on as they migrate into the country...It's must be like the I-94 card airlines provide when returning from overseas...

I'm going to call BS on this one, like the one where Obama didn't call foreign leaders until January 8, put out by Trump campaign manager and 3 other surrogates...

Here is another fake one...notice the lower right highlighted area- someone took the original and added the graphics:

This is from Wisconsin in 2012, I think. After a losing election, the GOP talked about starting rumors of voter fraud:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48625/wisconsin-voter-suppression-republicans/

They were dated to the early morning hours of April 6, 2011. At that time, the incumbent and GOP favorite in the Supreme Court race, then-Justice David Prosser, clung to a razor-thin election lead over the candidate favored by Democrats, Judge Joanne Kloppenburg. Steve Baas, a lobbyist for the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and former Republican legislative staffer, floated an idea on the email thread: "Do we need to start messaging 'widespread reports of election fraud' so we are positively set up for the recount regardless of the final number? I obviously think we should." Scott Jensen — the former GOP Assembly Speaker turned lobbyist for American Federation for Children, a private school voucher advocacy group — quickly responded: "Yes. Anything fishy should be highlighted. Stories should be solicited by talk radio hosts." In another email, Jensen writes that Prosser "needs to be on talk radio in the morning saying he is confident he won and talk radio needs to scream the Dems are trying to steal the race."

Other fake graphics put out on social media included the "you can text your vote for Hillary" photos and the Hillary will get women drafted photoshop creations.

Welcome to post-truth America.

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

The reason for it is to stop manipulation of votes. Every time there is a count there will be a chance for more manipulation. It has nothing to do with accuracy. You are going to create a never ending cycle of recounting.

That's a bold statement. So, recounts bad?

Yes recount is bad. It sets a bad precedence and makes the system look broke and untrustworthy. Think about this scenario if Hillary does come out with more votes. What is that going to do to America? She conceded and then the votes come to show she won now what about those that voted for Trump? There is probably going to be an uproar that is going to further split the nation. This recounting is setting a very dangerous precedence.

Hopefully lead to an investigation into what went wrong. It's very dangerous to not care about the accuracy of the votes and only care about maintaining the visual appearance of a Democracy.
I'd much rather have a valid recount in all 50 states (and I suspect Stein and Clinton would too) but there isn't *yet* the funding for that. If things are way off in the hand count in Wisconsin or Michigan, it would get the painful process of fixing our democracy started. If you stop the recounts, there is no hope of that happening and we'll be indefinitely relying on these paperless machines to tell us who won elections.

What if the result of the recount is the fraud?

I'm not sure what you're asking but there's always the potential for fraud. I think it is much less likely though when you have humans (monitored by attorneys from both sides) counting physical ballots than when you have paperless machines telling you who the winner is. There's more supervision and accountability with monitored humans counting physical ballots.

You mean the machine wasn't right the first time? And there was Human error the first time and there won't be human error the second time and the machine will be right the second time. Good grief.

typical loser logic

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

I wanted to do recounts but for both candidates, not a one sided recount. We have more than strong evidence of votor fraud via illegals voting now.
I think for us to have recounts, we can't just do the States that benefit Clinton. So, I see what Trump is doing is just trying to quell the one sided recount.

Ex-ICE Agent: I 'Routinely' Arrested Illegal Immigrants with Voter Registrations

"I worked in six locations across the United States. I probably arrested more than 1,000 illegal aliens in my career and I routinely encountered people who were in possession of voter registration cards. And as a part of my interview of them when they were arrested, I would ask them, "Do you or have you voted?' and often, I would get the answer 'yes,'" he explained.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/30/ice-agent-counterfeit-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigration-voters-registration-elections

Hilarious...This guy routinely arresting illegals with voter registrations cards..I don't even know what the card looks like..There must be stations located in the desert with stacks of voter registration cards that illegals in all states are getting their hands on as they migrate into the country...It's must be like the I-94 card airlines provide when returning from overseas...

I'm going to call BS on this one, like the one where Obama didn't call foreign leaders until January 8, put out by Trump campaign manager and 3 other surrogates...

You wanted MSM, you got it. I was playing by the Hillary supporters rules. Guess you need to disprove what you don't agree with.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

I wanted to do recounts but for both candidates, not a one sided recount. We have more than strong evidence of votor fraud via illegals voting now.
I think for us to have recounts, we can't just do the States that benefit Clinton. So, I see what Trump is doing is just trying to quell the one sided recount.

Ex-ICE Agent: I 'Routinely' Arrested Illegal Immigrants with Voter Registrations

"I worked in six locations across the United States. I probably arrested more than 1,000 illegal aliens in my career and I routinely encountered people who were in possession of voter registration cards. And as a part of my interview of them when they were arrested, I would ask them, "Do you or have you voted?' and often, I would get the answer 'yes,'" he explained.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/30/ice-agent-counterfeit-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigration-voters-registration-elections

What do you think would be a better first step towards getting a real recount in every state?
A) starting with Wisconsin and Michigan and then, if the results warrant it, pressuring politicians to do the rest of the states? Or
B) stopping the recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan, and never looking into any state's voting.

Option B is a zero percent chance. That's just burying whatever possible evidence might exist. Option A is clearly higher than a zero percent chance. Keep in mind that no matter how much you and I both want to do all 50 states right now, that option simply is not on the table. There is no direct immediate path to doing that. No one with any power in the country is willing to do that right now. We have to either go indirectly through option A or abandon any hope of verifying the vote. Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not asking if you like it. I don't like the fact that option A is the only check on our democracy that we have but it still is the only one.

I don't really like you "either or" questions, they are False Dilemma type questions, we have more choices. This is a constant fallacy type that is presented in this and the other thread.
If we wanted a fair an unbiased recount, it would have had to start from the get go (in all States close enough to warrant one e.g. close votes, not just those States Hillary lost in swing States).

But, it appears the recount effort by Stein is mostly not going to do anything:

1. She just withdrew the PA recount.

Green Party-backed voters dropped a court case Saturday night that had sought to force a statewide recount of Pennsylvania’s Nov. 8 presidential election...

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/12/03/green-party-drops-statewide-pennsylvania-recount/

They wanted 1 million as a bond (I believe) and Stein said ""Petitioners are regular citizens of ordinary means. They cannot afford to post the $1,000,000 bond required by the Court. Accordingly, kindly mark the above captioned matter withdrawn and discontinued."" https://twitter.com/PACourts/status/805175800664358912
I don't understand this, I think she needed 3.5 million for one recount and still had a few million left? I don't think Stein was at all able to prove that anything illegal took place. It looks like Stein's Green Party is going to have a few million "left over". And those 21,000 votes that "were found" via absentee ballots (or out of State, I forget), seemed strange. I never heard the total amount, just that Hillary had receieved 20,000 new votes, taking Trumps lead down to 49,000.

Note - Just saw this, she might be trying to go to a Federal court for the recount. http://abc27.com/2016/12/04/stein-changes-strategy-in-pennsylvania-recount/

2. WI recount - Trump has gained 36 votes thus far (nothing really), but recount not done. Edit - It appears Hillary just lost 18,422 votes in day 3 of recount, wow. Not MSM though and I can't verify it though the xl sheet. http://alexanderhiggins.com/wisconsin-recount-day-3-hillary-loses/ http://elections.wi.gov/node/4510

3. MI was counted for Trump on Election day. That vote was certified, thought not recounted. Note - Michigans Supreme court leans 5-2 for Republicans and 2 of those are on Trumps US Supreme court list.

Re Trumps Objection, legally, he has a point:

Trump’s objection states that Stein is not an “aggrieved” party because she came in fourth place in the election, and “is therefore not entitled to a recount.” Trump also argues that a recount would not be finished in time for the Electoral College to place their votes.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Objection_to_Recount_Petition_544089_7.pdf

Even if PA and WI were to flip, Trump would still be over 270.

I don't like the either/or situation either but it is reality. Send me a link to the candidate or organization trying to get a recount in all 50 states?! I will support them. If you can't, then we have to either do this indirect path or just abandon democracy.

December 2nd
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/donald-trump-rally-protest/
From November - Same picture.
http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/14/13626404/trump-election-protest

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/propaganda/ron-paul-fake-news-comes-government/

The mainstream media and politicians peddling the line that there is a network of “fake news” sites spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda is just scapegoating to divert attention from the far worse job they have done objectively reporting the truth, Ron Paul told RT yesterday. He added:
"The fake news comes from our own government, when they tell us about why we have to go to war. …And that was probably the big issue of the campaign, and that’s why Trump did so well. [Americans have] lost confidence in the government."

gunsnewing wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

The reason for it is to stop manipulation of votes. Every time there is a count there will be a chance for more manipulation. It has nothing to do with accuracy. You are going to create a never ending cycle of recounting.

That's a bold statement. So, recounts bad?

Yes recount is bad. It sets a bad precedence and makes the system look broke and untrustworthy. Think about this scenario if Hillary does come out with more votes. What is that going to do to America? She conceded and then the votes come to show she won now what about those that voted for Trump? There is probably going to be an uproar that is going to further split the nation. This recounting is setting a very dangerous precedence.

Hopefully lead to an investigation into what went wrong. It's very dangerous to not care about the accuracy of the votes and only care about maintaining the visual appearance of a Democracy.
I'd much rather have a valid recount in all 50 states (and I suspect Stein and Clinton would too) but there isn't *yet* the funding for that. If things are way off in the hand count in Wisconsin or Michigan, it would get the painful process of fixing our democracy started. If you stop the recounts, there is no hope of that happening and we'll be indefinitely relying on these paperless machines to tell us who won elections.

What if the result of the recount is the fraud?

I'm not sure what you're asking but there's always the potential for fraud. I think it is much less likely though when you have humans (monitored by attorneys from both sides) counting physical ballots than when you have paperless machines telling you who the winner is. There's more supervision and accountability with monitored humans counting physical ballots.

You mean the machine wasn't right the first time? And there was Human error the first time and there won't be human error the second time and the machine will be right the second time. Good grief.

typical loser logic

Loser Logic? How is it loser logic? Loser logic is asking for recount when the results were accepted by the candidate. This is a waste of time what this recount is doing is fueling bipartisan politics. It's continued post election politics which I have to say was some of the worst in America that I can remember. We as Americans need to move past that and give Trump a fair chance to prove us wrong.

earthmansurfer wrote:Walt, here is some Fake News straight from the horses mouth and verified. CNN of course, regarding Cincinatti protest. Original articles below. CNN lied, pretty cold to be dressed like that and someone caught it and found the original pic.

December 2nd
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/donald-trump-rally-protest/
From November - Same picture.
http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/14/13626404/trump-election-protest

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/propaganda/ron-paul-fake-news-comes-government/

The mainstream media and politicians peddling the line that there is a network of “fake news” sites spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda is just scapegoating to divert attention from the far worse job they have done objectively reporting the truth, Ron Paul told RT yesterday. He added:
"The fake news comes from our own government, when they tell us about why we have to go to war. …And that was probably the big issue of the campaign, and that’s why Trump did so well. [Americans have] lost confidence in the government."

Do you accept that during the election, WikiLeaks(Assange) was passing along stolen data that was hacked by Russians, designed to influence the election, and distributed to Assange with the go-ahead from former KGB operative Putin?