By assuming that the Democratic Party will undertake massive voter fraud in 2020, Donald Trump has unleashed an effort to de-legitimatize the outcome of that election if he and/or his party loses.

His statement last week to the Republican National Committee Conference that all votes must be counted  and “be more paranoid”  20 months from now begins a drumbeat that will be endlessly repeated on Fox News and countless tweets.

This is the latest in an increasing series of presidential efforts to call into question the rule of law and dependability of political institutions upon which our Republic depends.

He wants the “base” to expect an illegitimate election, to consider the process of a national election fraudulent, to accept that one of our two major Parties is corrupt and sinister, that it will bring hoards of illegal aliens to the polls on its behalf, and that, despite all evidence to the contrary, there is every expectation that it will do anything to win.

All this despite also the “hanging chad” fiasco in 2000, the “swift boat” campaign against John Kerry in 2004, the Willie Horton campaign against Mike Dukakis in 1988, the “birther” campaign against Barack Obama virtually throughout his presidency up to and including Trump’s perpetuation of that totally false rumor in 2016.

Other Democratic candidates for the Presidency during this entire period were victims of Republican sponsored “set ups.”

If any Party should know about campaign frauds, it would be the president’s.

All true patriots must be prepared for any eventuality as the next election approaches.  Poll watchers must be seriously trained.  Election lawyers must be identified and deployed at polling stations where mischief might be expected.  State and local election officials must expect efforts at voter intimidation.  Massive challenges to voter identification will surely be used to delay voting in heavily Democratic districts.  And maximum pressure to tilt the vote will occur in so-called “purple” States.

Senior judicial officials should be prepared for court challenges on election day concerning voter qualifications and voter intimidation.

In the words of the old movie: “These are desperate men and they will stop at nothing”

The stakes could not be higher.

6 Responses to “A Fraudulent Case Against Fraud”

  1. JD Kinnick Says:

    As a former Democrat its clear to see that election shenanigans occur on both sides of the aisle. Legally registered citizens should be encouraged to vote and illegal aliens aren’t eligible to vote in a federal election. The late Lee Atwater may have been the king of election shenanigans but it was actually the Gore primary campaign from ’88 that first dug up the Willie Horton issue. I still think one of Sen. Hart’s ’88 primary opponents(Gore, Babbitt, Dukakis, etc) may have a hand in Miami Herald’s sabotage of the Hart ’88 campaign. Ask Romney what he thought about Obama winning over 99% of the vote in over 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio in 2012. Khrushchev would have been proud of those numbers. If GDP continues at 3% or better I see President Trump sailing to re-election over a weak Democratic field.

  2. Gary Hart Says:

    As a lifelong Democrat, there is little to no evidence “that election shenanigans occur on both sides.” I say that as one whose taxes were audited in 1972 because I worked for George McGovern and who in 1987 was the object of the attentions of that notable firm of Manafort, Stone, and Atwater, not another Democrat. There simply is no phony equivalency to the 2000, 2004, and 2008 and beyond “shenanigans” that derailed or damaged Democratic presidential campaigns and that continues even today through the daily “shenanigans” of Trump & Co. GH

  3. Paul G Says:


    In 1980, Charles Black co-founded an “international” strategy and lobbying firm, Black, Manafort, Stone, Kelly, to continue the Nixon era legacy of winning at all costs, including his first client, Rupert Murdoch, and first hire, Lee Atwater; to “strategize” on behalf of their primary client, GHW Bush, in a mission to pre-empt formal debate or vote by fooling trusted media to “protect” America from the set-up opponent.

    In 1987, separate but secretly connected cells played their “solo” mission roles, including boat switching, image snapping, tip counseling, quote faking, newspaper counseling, and community protecting. Atwater admitted switching yachts; yacht-owner employee Armandt admitted snapping cropped photo; ‘liberal’ Weems admitted cockney Armandt advised her during her call to a newspaper; Fiedler confirmed Black called his newspaper urging the “hunt to protect the (American) community” (from a President Hart).

    30 years later, our community is $22 trillion in national debt, with annual near-$trillion deficits, two or more avoidable, seemingly endless, unnecessary, but highly profitable wars for “international” strategists.
    Rupert Murdoch, 88, – was described (UK parliamentary inquiry, 2011) by three former prime ministers as “a foreigner who can’t vote in our country but changed our government on a whim,” remains atop the media world of merriment and mayhem profitability, but now with his own president doing his bidding!

    Seven years after Hart flew to the White House (9-5-01) to warn the ignorantly hostile president of a likely international terrorist attack, Charles Black advised a presidential candidate how beneficial it would be for his chance of success if a similar terrorist attack occurred in 2008.

    Right now, as deans of media and ethics professors of journalism see not the evil foretold by the Columbia School of Journalism in 1980, and as an honest reporter hinted at in The Front Runner movie; a good and caring leader remains exiled as the dots remain unconnected. Terrorists images were snapped and immortalized in the post-9/11 Report while the pre-9/11 reporting heroes remain unmentioned.

    Right now, though Atwater atoned before his untimely death (1991); Manafort was imprisoned (2018); Stone is scheduled for trial (11-2019). But ‘both sides’ Black (‘Get Me Roger Stone’) remains omitted.

    The depth of our experience and the quality of our work is unparalleled in Washington. Our policy expertise covers every sector, committee jurisdiction and Federal department of government. Whatever your challenge, we can design and execute the winning strategy that resolves it. We have 40 government relations experts representing:

    • Both sides of the aisle
    • Both chambers of Congress
    • Four of the last Administrations
    • Swing coalitions such as Blue Dog Democrats and moderate Republicans
    • Both major political parties

  4. Brian McCarthy Says:


    I am aware of no evidence of voter fraud or “shenanigans” by Democrats. A party that has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections hardly has a reason to. N’est-ce pas?


  5. Eric C. Jacobson Says:

    They say a tree falling in the forest unheard raises doubts about its existence. So it was initially with my above-linked online essay about Sen. Hart’s 1980s presidential campaigns and The Front Runner movie. But then a friend sent me a line after reading my writing (which I had warned him was lengthy). His response included the following passage:

    “Yes, it is quite long. I am sure that writing that was cathartic for you. You added some good new information in that, especially about Dick Capen. In the middle of Operation Hart-break we have the CIA’s point man on disinformation about POWs left in Vietnam. That’s highly damning. The problem is that what you wrote should either be published as a book, or edited down to your expository information about the set-up.”

    Here is part of my reply (excerpted for pertinence to this thread):
    “Thanks for reading it….

    “The article is primarily meant to remind the authors of the purge that they can’t (fully) successfully stage-manage both the coup and the cover-up and eradication of GH’s substantive legacy, consisting…of…most notably his 1984 presidential campaign which presaged a return to the ethos of pre-lapsarian America before the 1963-1968 assassinations.

    “I just ran across an apropos passage from Donald Gibson’s book The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up [first published in 1999 and re-printed in 2014 by Progressive Press] that applies equally to Hart’s character assassination (at p. 203):
    Leaders are usually killed because some group does not like their ideas and policies. If the ideas and policies survive and continue to guide decision making then the assassination is a pointless and risky exercise. The ideas and policies must also be “assassinated.” In order to cover-up the assassination, the assassins must control the investigation. … A successful cover-up also requires that the leader’s actual ideas and policies are never connected to the assassination. That would lead to the real assassins. The assassination of the ideas is then also part of the cover-up.

    It follows that the cover-up of an assassination requires control over the actual investigation, a patsy, and an incorrect image of the dead leader. As we have seen, mainstream or conservative Establishment figures gained control over the investigation and created the official cover story, i.e., the President was killed by a lone nut, one who may have had communist tendencies.
    “In GH’s case, the same conservative and mainstream Establishment elements ran the entire show, and successfully disappeared JFK-acolyte Hart…and no ‘Hart character assassination buffs’ (such as ourselves) were able to provide any response prior to the advent of social media.

    “Btw, I agree the subject was- and is worthy of a book and if a publisher provided me an advance I might take on such a project but am not in a position to seek one myself. …

    “I’ll take the compliment re Capen. Capen’s videos online about his POW work ring false. I didn’t link to them in part b/c of the already very large number of links. Counterpunch’s editor Jeffrey St. Clair rejected the article (an hour after first accepting it!) due to what he called “the insane number of links” (not knowing that I had left out many I could have included).”

    It’s beyond the scope of this comment but (having visited the site of the Dallas assassination) it’s crystal clear to me that JFK was executed by rifle fire at near-point-blank range from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. What “ideas and policies” were assassinated with him? Big ideas such as Kennedy’s opposition to British-style “white man’s burden”-type neo-colonialism (which likely would have induced him to withdraw from Vietnam in 1965 so as not to repeat France’s fate 10 years hence). And Kennedy’s desire, previewed in his American University speech, to pursue detente and arms reduction treaties with the USSR. These ideas and policies (with the partial exception of nuclear arms control) have since been totally eliminated from America’s civic agenda (although not from our people’s civic consciousness).

    Sen. Hart’s clear intention to reorient and extend American foreign and defense policies along these lines (producing enduring “peace dividends”) substantially motivated those behind the 1987 set-up, who I name in my essay. All in this thread are partially correct in their observations but JD Kinnick forgets that Bill Clinton had all-but-decided to run in 1988. And my friend Paul G (who I rarely disagree with) is incorrect in one important respect: Dana Weems was NOT Tom Fiedler’s tipster. She told Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Bill Dedman she wasn’t in real time and she also wasn’t the self-identified “liberal Democrat” Fiedler described. Mr. Dedman confirmed Weems wasn’t even registered to vote in 1987!

    Tom Fiedler (if you’re reading this): Name the tipster! Several thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of residents of Afghanistan, Iraq and other foreign countries died in 30 years of endless wars because of you and your female tipster and your power-elite puppeteers!

    Significantly too: Just as the establishment’s debunking of JFK has continued indefinitely (albeit less-and-less effectively) their debunking of Hart has likewise persisted (to similarly decreasing effect), and not just through the 2018 Hollywood feature film that completely ignored the synthetic plotted set-up. (Thankfully the film was a “dud” commercially as well as artistically.)

    A pointed example is the effort to erase from the recent historical record Sen. Hart’s admirable advocacy (as late as Dec. 2011 here: ) of significantly improved U.S.-Russia relations. The back-story here is that (under presidents Clinton and Obama) mainstream Democrats sold-out and governed almost totally in the interest of their 1% donor class instead of the 99%. One casualty of this right-center turn by elite Democrats was U.S.-Russian relations after the USSR dissolved in Dec. 1991. President Clinton insanely promoted NATO expansion against the grave warning of George Kennan who said: “My God: We will live to regret this.” This all led directly to the loss of the presidency in 2016 to a fake-populist shyster-businessman and reality tv actor with a knack for ingratiating himself with the rural rubes, as here: . Trump was even able to play the card of improved relations with Russia as part of his long con.

    These same elite Democratic misleaders of the nation’s non-conservatives then concocted the “Russiagate” (AKA Putin-Trump collusion) propaganda campaign, a half-baked conspiracy theory that is still “running on fumes” in the wake of the Mueller Report’s “dud heard round the world.” Desperate sold-out men and women who would “stop at nothing” to hide their fecklessness well describes the elite Democratic authors of Trump’s victory and the Russiagate psy-op.

    Finally dear readers, you be the judge regarding Richard “Dick” Capen, the Miami Herald publisher who “unleashed the hounds” (Mr. Burns style) on the 1988 Democratic front-runner and then insolently demeaned Sen. Hart in a comment during the Q&A portion of a convention of newspaper publishers Gary addressed during the middle of the Seven Days in May 1987 preemptive presidential coup. Here is Dick discussing the POW issue: (April 2017 interview); and (~ 1969 press conference video alas with sound muted).

    Capen’s Nixonian political loyalty and spin on the POWs in Vietnam (he lays the nation’s early-1960s through mid-1970s divisions solely at the feet of LBJ and gratuitously mentions Jane Fonda’s trip to North Vietnam) is also relevant to a facet of the present political moment and Sen. Hart’s instant blog post in which the host anticipates Trump-GOP dirty tricks in 2020 including falsely claiming that Democrats have fixed the presidential election result by enabling non-citizens to vote (a Trump-GOP big lie).

    Alas, that understates what is in store: It is now evident from the president’s increasingly (seemingly) unhinged, bumptious and reactionary remarks about immigration, Israel and other topics that Trump and his diabolical rightist polemicists intend to convert the 2020 presidential race into a full-blown 1960s-1970s culture-war-oriented contest. One in which Donald Trump will adopt another tv persona: That of Archie Bunker, the famous character from the popular sitcom All In The Family. (Show-runner Norman Lear did the country no favors by having the brilliant actor Carroll O’Connor play Archie as a eccentric “curmudgeon” rather than the vile bigot the Archie Bunker character objectively was.)

    The Trump campaign evidently further plans to cast the likely Democratic nominee, Sen. Bernie Sanders, as an aged version of Archie’s son-in-law on the show, the Mike Stivic character played by actor Rob Reiner with admirable (but chiliastic) brio, goals and values. Archie refers to his tv son-in-law exclusively as “Meathead”—a nickname we can anticipate being recycled in 2020.

    This pathetic “strategery” is likey “not gonna work” in the respective president Bush’s old phrases, for the reasons I tweeted out here: But sadly, it just might.

  6. Eric C. Jacobson Says: (Prof. George Breslauer’s Feb. 2018 lecture on U.S.-Russian relations) (1998 NY Times article on George Kennan’s opposition to NATO expansion)

    CORRECTION: In (mis)quoting George Kennan, I mashed-up 2 sequential passages I recalled from the above-linked lecture by my undergraduate mentor on U.S.-USSR relations, Prof. George Breslauer. At the 22-23:15 minute mark Prof. Breslauer states:
    “Yeltsin, finally realizing what was going on, said to an American [notable]: ‘Russia will rise again.’ That was not meant to be a threat. That was meant to indicate: ‘We have a self-conception as a great power. We’re geographically the largest country in the world. We’re in an utter mess at the moment. But don’t think that’s going to last for 20-30 years. Russia will rise again and you will end up regretting how you treated her in her moment of greatest need.’

    “George Kennan at the time, one of our great diplomats, when he saw NATO expansion in 1999, he said: ‘My God, this is going to come back to haunt us.'”

Leave a Reply

All comments are reviewed by a moderator prior to approval and are subject to the UCD blog use policy.