By Carlos David Aguilar
The feigned outrage by Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and the media over Donald Trump not endorsing a Hillary Clinton presidency is pathetic and manufactured. It’s all about painting Donald Trump in such a way that he seems completely unfit to hold the office of President, totally detached from America’s traditions and tenets.
It is not an American tradition for the losing candidate to endorse the winner for the Presidency of the United States. It might rise to the level of an unwritten rule, but an American tradition, it is not.
The American tenet Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace was thinking of was a smooth transition of power, from the outgoing President to the incoming President. President Truman was the first to reach out to his successor, presidential transitions have become more formal and complex, as the office of the presidency has ascended in importance. The president is a world leader and as such, needs to be as ready and knowledgeable of situations and circumstances on Day One.
Barack Obama is the office holder, he and his appointed transition team are responsible for a smooth transition to the winner of this election whether it be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Obama has experience with this transfer of power, being on the other side as incoming Commander in Chief in 09. Staffers on President Barack Obama’s 2008 transition team allegedly didn’t feel the need to be “nice” to outgoing President George W. Bush, according to an email published by WikiLeaks. In response to an email regarding a campaign statement about Obama’s visit to the White House after his victory, John Podesta, who was then an Obama transition chairman, suggested a statement from Barack that had kind words for President Bush, was too kind.
After staffers debated praising the Bush administration’s efforts to ease the housing crisis, Podesta replied, “We don’t need to be this nice, and “He hasn’t done nearly enough although they seemed poised to finally do more,” Podesta wrote.
On the other hand, the Bush administration prepared for the transition that they viewed was different than any experienced by earlier presidents. This same sentiment ran through the government as a whole. A book written by Martha Kumar about the Bush-Obama transition, Kumar writes that the preparations for the 2008 transition were the most extensive and polished than any others preceding it. In December 2007, President Bush charged his chief of staff, Josh Bolten, that given the country is involved in two wars, it was critically important to have the best transition ever. At the direction of President Bush, Josh Bolten guided a government wide effort to define and then meet the needs of the next administration.
On both sides and independent of one another, staff created a series of templates for acquiring what information they would need and when they should be gathering it. The templates covered diverse functions and institutions. The templates also addressed the requirements and demands for the approximately 1,200 executive branch positions a chief executive has to fill and the process of gathering information.
A post 9/11 transition that contained all the pertinent information and intelligence on all things America was necessary and fortunately, GWB felt the same. The Bush 43 transition team was highly praised for working with the Barack Obama transition team, and is regarded as an ideal template for how to plan future power changes, whether it be a same-party handoff or a change in party transfer of power.
The Bush-Obama transition differs from the Bush 41 to Clinton transfer of power. In 1992-93 Clinton’s sluggishness and disorganization marred the process of assembling a Clinton team, with the president-elect focusing more on high-profile Cabinet appointments that had diversity in color, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preference rather than qualifications, excellence, and selecting a White House staff and establishing a clear decision-making process. Example: Whereas Obama quickly tapped Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff, Clinton did not make the crucial appointment until mid-December, and a number of top staff people were not named until a week before Inauguration day. Unlike the Bush-Obama transition, major intelligence gaps were left, you know what would come next.
More egregious tradition demolishing behavior by the Democrats occurred when they launched unprecedented attacks against George Bush during the Iraq War, a War they voted for, in which they had the same intelligence as President Bush. In 1998 President Bill Clinton passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, that called for regime change by force if necessary. At the time of their slanders men were in theater, this is a very serious tenet that was broken, so much so it was unprecedented. Imagine if you’re an 18 or 20 year old soldier in the Middle East fighting Jihadists, and 1 of the 2 major political parties of your country has just announced the war you’re fighting is fraudulent and you were sent there to fight, possibly die, was based on lies. This horrific display of grandstanding, even if it were true, only costs lives on the battlefield. Soldiers cannot engage in combat missions half-heartedly, going door-to-door in a country where you cannot tell the difference between the enemy and the civilian. This kind of combat needs the ultimate focus. When breaching the door of a suspected Jihadist you find a woman holding a crying baby and an elderly man laying on the couch in the living room is comforting a toddler, you’re not suspecting the preteen sitting by the TV with a smile, to pull a Kalashnikov modified for concealment, to open fire on you and your team, at least not on your first tour.
Democrats turned their backs on the War, the men fighting that war, and a real American tenet, that our disagreements and policy differences end at the waters edge, especially with men in theater at a time of war. If historians are honest it will go down as one of the most cynical and cowardly political calculations in American History, with the war becoming more bloody and unpopular the Democrats decided to cut and run.
Democrats from Jimmy Carter to Hillary Clinton to John Kerry, called President Bush a destroyer of the Constitution, a usurper who stole his power, Ted Kennedy said the war was fraudulent, Jimmy Carter said he sent men into battle based on lies, AL Gore notoriously squealed “He betrayed us,” and the pìece de résistance Harry Reid, “the war is lost.” These slanders and attacks were unprecedented in American history.
So the mainstream media manufactured a controversy over Chris Wallace’s mischaracterization of an American tradition. A tradition is a belief, an ethic, a law or custom in a culture, that is passed on or down through successive generations, so it is serious. A common understanding of the English language should have alerted most, to Chris Wallace’s mistake.
Wallace: Mr. Trump, I want to ask you about one last question in this topic. You’ve been warning at rallies recently that this election is rigged and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight, do you make the same commitment that you’ll absolutely accept the result of the election.”
Wallace: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?
Wallace declared that it is an American Pride, a fact, that there’s a peaceful transition of power no matter how hard fought a campaign is. There are two problems with Wallace’s supposition. The 1st is that it is not a tradition for the loser in the presidential campaign to endorse the winner of the campaign facilitating a smooth transfer of power, stop. Exactly what power is being transferred, neither have the power of the presidency, they aren’t in office. Secondly, Trump is saying that the election is rigged on multiple fronts and he’s right. There is voter fraud that goes on every year, it just takes an act of God to get somebody convicted, so it’s never pursued. Think about it, if you don’t have to produce and ID at your polling place, you can only hope that someone doesn’t vote in your place. At my polling place all that is asked is party affiliation, Democrat or Republican in the primary. When they see my face as I say Republican the looks aren’t dirty, but more like what are you doing. In the general they have two tables set up, one table is handling a group of numbers located on your ballot designating a certain area, the other table is handling the other half of numbers that would be from that same area in my town, Normal Heights. What they do is break up a town into certain areas and then break up an area into two. All that’s asked is, ‘what is the number on your ballot,’ then I go to the proper table and find my name on a print out containing all the names of the voters in my area. I sign and then I’m given a bubble answer sheet. That’s it.
The poll workers where I vote are definitely a diverse bunch, yet at least half are Hispanic. I actually signed up to be a poll worker over 6 months ago, I was sent an application packet which I sent back promptly, fully completed, two days later. All I’ve received back is my voting ballot and the accompanying supplemental containing the information about ballot measures and candidate positions.
Conventional Journalist wisdom holds that reporters and editors are referees on the Political Playing Field, Bastions of Neutrality, dispassionate, unbiased reporters of the facts. Consider that another tradition broken by our friends on the left. Reporters and news organizations have openly professed their support Hillary Clinton neglecting every Wikileaks story, that has broken. These emails that WIKILEAKS has exposed deal with the most important issues that we face today. The eemails have confirmed Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar that has disdain for practically every special interest group she professes to Champion. The emails also confirm her and her husbands pay for play racket, exposing there foundation is nothing more than a slush fund money laundering operation. To not report on these crucial issues, yet report on Donald Trump not adhering to a non existent tradition, taking up a weeks worth of news coverage, is a form of rigging.
From the minute a Republican campaign starts Republicans are already at an electoral disadvantage. Democrats start with around 242 electoral votes before one door is knocked on or one TV ad is placed. But what nobody is talking about is the integrity of the actual machines that tally the votes.
The U.K.-based Smartmatic company posted a flow-chart on its website that it had provided voting machines for 16 states, including important battleground states like Florida and Arizona. Smartmatic Chairman Mark Malloch-Brown is a former U.N. official and sits on the board of Soros’ Open Society Foundations. Since the story first broke, the flow-chart has disappeared from Smartmatic’s website, raising further questions about the real status of the Soros-tied voting equipment and whether it is truly being deployed in U.S. elections.
The chairman of Smartmatic is Malloch-Brown who sits in the British House of Lords and on the board of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. He was formerly the vice-chairman of Soros’s Investment Funds and even the deputy secretary-general of the United Nations when he worked as chief of staff to Kofi Annan & where he was also embroiled in the oil-for-food scandal.
Whilst working for the U.N., Malloch-Brown rented an apartment from Soros when on assignment in New York. In 2007, Soros appointed Malloch-Brown vice president of his Quantum Funds, vice chairman of Soros Fund Management, and vice chairman of the Open Society Institute (the former name of OSF).
Leaked emails courtesy of WikiLeaks have shed further light on the deeply incestuous relationship between Soros and high-level Democratic Party players. The discovery that a man who may have provided voting equipment to 16 states is tied directly to the man who has given millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and various progressive and globalist causes will surely leave a bad taste in many voters’ mouths.
If Malloch-Brown’s Soros ties weren’t troubling enough, he also has ties to the Clintons through his work at two consulting firms known for their Clinton connections.
Malloch-Brown was a partner with Sawyer-Miller, the consulting firm where close Clinton associate Mandy Grunwald once worked. She ran the firm’s communications contract with the 1992 Clinton campaign. Malloch-Brown was also a senior adviser to FTI Consulting, a firm at which Jackson Dunn, who spent 15 years working as an aide to the Clintons, is a senior managing director.
In addition to a close relationship with Soros, Malloch-Brown has worked with consulting firms that are well-connected to Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was an international partner with the Sawyer-Miller consulting firm and was a senior adviser to FTI Consulting. One of Sawyer-Miller’s alumni is Mandy Grunwald, who ran the firm’s communication contract for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run. She was also the head of communications for Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.
Malloch-Brown’s ties to George Soros and the Clintons are enough to elicit fear over Smartmatic’s possible involvement in the U.S. election — but when combined with Smartmatic’s dismal track record of providing free and fair elections, their involvement in the U.S. presidential election becomes downright terrifying.
Donald Trump has every right to tell Chris Wallace that he will wait and see how the voting is conducted, making sure there are no voting irregularities. The system is rigged and Donald Trump has exposed it on a grand scale.