Most of us are eagerly awaiting the release of the House Intelligence Committee’s memo on abuse of the FBI by the Obama administration. It should happen in the next couple of days. Meanwhile, the Bureau is worried, as always, about its public image. The Associated Press headlines: “FBI clashes with Trump, has ‘grave concerns’ on Russia memo.” I’m so old, I can remember when liberals were in favor of revealing corruption in institutions like the FBI. Those days, of course, are long gone.
In a remarkably public clash of wills with the White House, the FBI declared Wednesday it has “grave concerns” about the accuracy of a classified memo on the Russia election investigation that President Donald Trump wants released.
Yeah, well, you know what? I have grave concerns about the politicization of the Department of Justice and the FBI under the Obama administration, which I have been writing about since 2010.
“As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy,” the FBI said.
If there are “material omissions of fact,” the Democrats’ responsive memo no doubt will reveal them. Good: let’s lay the cards on the table. The relevant fact here is that the FBI is no longer claiming that there is a national security problem with releasing the memo, only that it will put the FBI in a bad light.
Trey Gowdy, soon to depart the House, gets the last word:
The Justice Department had said in a letter last week that it would be “extraordinarily reckless” to release the memo without first giving the FBI and the department the chance to review it.
After those complaints, Wray reviewed the memo over the weekend. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who was with him when he reviewed the memo, said the FBI director did not raise any national security concerns. Gowdy said the memo doesn’t reveal any intelligence methods but does reveal “one source.”
Heh. Christopher Steele, I presume. It’s time for some transparency. Let’s get to the bottom of the FBI’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The Bureau needs, at a minimum, to be reformed via a thorough housecleaning of senior bureaucrats.
We know that in 2016, during the Obama Administration, the FBI applied for a FISA warrant to wiretap Carter Page, who was an official of the Trump presidential campaign. There are multiple indications that the primary evidence presented as probable cause in this application was a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, who was working for an outfit called Fusion GPS, which was being paid — albeit indirectly — by the Clinton campaign. It also appears that almost all the information in this dossier was unverified, and that much of it was false, and that the FBI made no attempt to verify any of it before using it in the FISA application.
If all this is true, I believe that is worse than Watergate for this reason: While the Nixon campaign used private citizens to commit a crime, and that’s a very bad thing, the scenario laid out above would mean that the Obama Administration, via the Justice Department and specifically the FBI, abused a law enforcement mechanism of the federal government — feeding it false information to obtain legal cover for the act of spying on a political opponent. That’s not just breaking the law. That’s corrupting the institutions of the law itself to accomplish the same thing.
That’s what makes it worse.
Democrats refused to stand during a number of key moments in President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, showing their disrespect for veterans, Americans receiving tax cuts and more.
We’ve compiled a list of the worst times Democrats chose not to stand for Trump’s speech.
1. The National Anthem
Trump touted the patriotism of a young boy named Preston who planted flags for veterans.
“Young patriots like Preston teach all of us about our civic duty as Americans. Preston’s reverence for those who have served our Nation reminds us why we salute our flag, why we put our hands on our hearts for the pledge of allegiance, and why we proudly stand for the national anthem.”
2. ‘In God We Trust’
“In America, we know that faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, are the center of the American life. Our motto is ‘in God we trust.’”
3. Tax Cuts
“And just as I promised the American people from this podium 11 months ago, we enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history.”
4. Record Low In Black Unemployment
“Unemployment claims have hit a 45-year low. African-American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded, and Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history.”
“And we are serving our brave veterans, including giving our veterans choice in their healthcare decisions. Last year, the Congress passed, and I signed, the landmark VA Accountability Act.”
They’re so used to lying politicians that they’re stunned when one comes along trying to keep the promises made.
President Trump used his State of the Union address Tuesday to push many of the issues he campaigned on, just as his predecessors have done before him, and yet many in the news media were disappointed and confused about why he brought them up at all.
Trump’s speech was heavy on illegal immigration, one of his defining campaign issues, the threat of Islamic terrorism and international trade.
But on NBC, “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd bemoaned that those themes were so central in the address, and suggested that Trump should have been more conciliatory toward Democrats.
“I expected a lot more actual outreach,” said Todd. “It was a few things at the beginning, but then it was, you know — he didn’t lead with a conciliatory tone on immigration. He didn’t lead with a conciliatory tone on Gitmo. He didn’t lead with a conciliatory tone even on some things like the infrastructure plan. It was — I felt like he spoke more to his base than I expected him to, particularly on immigration and that could be part of his sales pitch.”
Trump, however, campaigned on taking a tough line against illegal immigration, aggressively combating Islamic terror and repealing Obamacare, among other contentious policy issues.
In his State of the Union speech, he announced he was “keeping another promise” and had just signed an executive order that would keep Guantanamo Bay prison open to detain enemy combatants. He also highlighted guests he had invited, among them, two families whose daughters were killed by illegal immigrants.
“Democrats have no new ideas. The party exists only to serve as a vehicle for collecting bribes and handing out favors.”
That was no State of the Union address tonight. That was the death of Democratic Party.
President Trump was positive, optimistic, and energized as he pointed out one success after another.
The stock market soars. Wages rise. Factories return. Taxes fall. Bonuses arrive.
One of his biggest applause lines came when he said they ended the worst part of the Obamacare: the mandate.
Throughout his address to Congress, Trump was buoyant.
Nancy Pelosi sulked. She looked like a mouse denied even a crumb.
She did not applaud Trump when he said, “We can achieve absolutely anything.”
She stewed when he said, “Americans share the same home, the same heart, the same destiny, and the same American flag.”
She sat stonily when he said, “We want every American to know the dignity of a hard day’s work. We want every child to be safe in their home at night. And we want every citizen to be proud of this land that we love.”
Before the speech, true conservative columnist Andrew Malcolm wrote, “Can Pelosi and her doddering crew convince enough Americans that she and her party should retrieve the Speaker’s gavel without outlining specifically what, if anything, positive they propose to do differently? Other than, of course, not being Donald Trump.”
Democrats have nothing. They stand for equal pay (the law since 1963). Civil rights (1964). Gun control (1968). Abortion on demand (1973).
Why not call for the end to Prohibition (1933)?
standard operational demoncrap-for-brains ⇓
With speeches like the annual State of the Union address, it’s difficult for President Trump to make everyone happy.
Of course, gun control advocates are crying foul because Trump had “no mention” of the Las Vegas shooting (which is utterly false).
People, please check your bags before you go to the airport.
There was a realistic-looking replica of a suicide vest found in a checked bag at an airport in El Paso. A block of inert explosives was discovered in a carry-on bag at an airport in Florida. Hand grenades were confiscated from luggage at airports all over the country.
These, along with 3,957 firearms, were among the items discovered agents with the Transportation Security Administration discovered at airport security checkpoints in 2017.
In its “TSA Year in Review” report, the agency said a “record-setting” number of firearms were found in carry-on bags. With nearly 4,000 firearms for the year, that translates to about 10 firearms a day.
That’s up roughly 17 percent from 2016, when 3,391 firearms were found at checkpoints, TSA said. And the number of firearms found has risen steadily since TSA began tracking the number in 2005, when 660 firearms were found.
Glamour magazine interviewed female gun owners during the NSSF SHOT Show, then posted a story wherein the women explained why they support the Second Amendment.
Glamour asked all the women the same question, “Why do you have a gun?” The vast majority simply responded that they owned guns for “protection” or “self-defense.” But there those who owned guns for sport as well.
The women were asked how they react when people question the value of private gun ownership. Twenty-four-year-old Chrysti Ane said, “My own personal belief is that I do feel safer with a gun,” 38-year-old Crystal said, “If they don’t like it, then don’t carry one,” and 54-year-old Charlene added, “If you don’t like guns, that’s fine. Don’t tell me and don’t preach to me that ‘guns are bad,’ and this and that. Guns don’t kill people.”
Each woman was also asked, “When mass shootings or school shootings happen—like the [school shooting in Kentucky on January 23]—does it ever make you rethink your position?”
The women predominantly answered, “No,” indicating that criminal misuse of firearms does not make them rethink their support of the Second Amendment. Others went even further and explained that criminal misuse of firearms only bolsters their determination to armed to defend themselves, should be they find themselves under attack.
They are rights you buffoon!
Hutchinson calls himself reliable supporter of gun rights with ‘appropriate limits’….
Gov. Asa Hutchinson postured himself as a reliable supporter of gun rights with “appropriate limits” in a speech to the Arkansas Sheriffs’ Association on Monday.
The Republican governor — also a former federal prosecutor and head of the Drug Enforcement Administration — appeared at ease speaking in front of the law enforcement group at its meeting in Little Rock. His 22-minute speech highlighted his successful efforts to create beds for treatment of the mentally ill and to reduce lockups of low-level parole and probation offenders, while interspersing his record with anecdotes about drug busts and visions of the “Old West.”
“I believe in the rule of law,” Hutchinson told the group. “You have the heart and soul of the rule of law.”
In his bid for re-election to a second four-year term, Hutchinson faces a primary challenge from Hot Springs gun-range owner Jan Morgan. Morgan has derided the governor’s record on guns.
Last month, Hutchinson told the Arkansas State Police in a memo that he believed Arkansans have a right to openly carry handguns, a decision he told the sheriff’s group Monday was made to provide clarity. County sheriffs are not bound by the governor’s memo.
Hutchinson also said it was “common sense” to require gun owners to train and get a permit before being allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public — a stance that set him apart from Morgan.
“In my judgment, that [concealed carry license] is absolutely consistent with the Arkansas Constitution and our Second Amendment privileges,” Hutchinson said.
Yes, House Intelligence Committee Republicans voted Monday evening to release their so-called “FISA abuse” memo to the public, which will happen any day now, after President Trump gives the OK. That was a done deal, given the GOP has a 13-to-9 advantage on the committee. Every Republican voted to make the GOP memo public, while every Democrat voted against it.
But there was also a rare moment of bipartisanship for the bitterly divided panel. At the same meeting, Republicans and Democrats voted unanimously to make the Democratic memo — the counter-memo to the Republican document — available to all members of the House.
That is the same process Republicans, under chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., followed with their memo. First, make it available to House members. (That happened on Jan. 18.) Later, after members of both parties have had a chance to read the memo, decide whether to release it to the public.
More than one Republican told me Monday that they plan to support releasing the Democratic memo to the public after a period of time comparable to the Republican example. (Republicans voted down a Democratic motion to make the Democratic memo public immediately, arguing that House members should have a chance to read it first.)
“Obviously we have gone through the process of letting our colleagues read our memo over the last several days, and I think that when the Democratic memo has gone through the same process, then it should have the same day in court, so to speak,” Republican committee member Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., told reporters after the session.
To no one’s surprise, ranking Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the first to make it to the cameras after the meeting Monday. He noted that the committee had voted to make the Democratic memo available to “members of the House that have been misled by the majority’s memorandum.” But he also spoke in a way that might have led a casual listener to conclude Republicans had voted to keep the memo completely under wraps. At one point he referred to “if and when the majority allows the minority memorandum to see the light of day.”
Now that the Democratic memo is available to everyone in the House, it remains to be seen whether Democrats will flock to read the memo as Republicans — about 200 of them — flocked to read the GOP memo. But what is clear is that some Republicans have already taken a look at the Democratic document, and it is, as expected, all about the GOP memo.
The Democratic memo, which like the Republican memo is classified and can only be viewed in a secure room, is an attempt to discredit the GOP document without making any larger point about the Trump-Russia investigation, said Republicans who have seen it.
“It was written by attorneys as a rebuttal to our memo, but it’s not going to move their argument forward,” noted one Republican member who has read the Democratic paper. “It’s too detailed, too confusing, and far more personal — they go after [Nunes] again and again.
Mollie Hemingway: Media Is Missing “Something Huge” Happening At FBI
Stretching or breaking the law on her behalf would have been rewarded by a President Clinton.
What exactly were top officials in the FBI and DOJ doing during the election of 2016? The Page-Strzok text exchanges might offer a few answers. Or, as Lisa Page warned her paramour as early as February 2016, at the beginning of the campaign and well before the respective party nominees were even selected:
One more thing: she [Hillary Clinton] might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?
The traditional way of looking at the developing scandals at the FBI and among holdover Obama appointees in the DOJ is that the bizarre atmospherics from candidate and President Trump have simply polarized everyone in Washington, and no one quite knows what is going on.
Another, more helpful, exegesis, however, is to understand that if we’d seen a Hillary Clinton victory in November 2016, which was supposed to be a sure thing, there would now be no scandals at all.
That is, the current players probably broke laws and committed ethical violations not just because they were assured there would be no consequences but also because they thought they’d be rewarded for their laxity. . . .
If we consider the mentality of government elite careerists, we see that the election-cycle machinations and later indiscretions of Strzok and Page were not liabilities at all. They were good investments. They signaled their loyalty to the incoming administration and that they were worthy of commendation and reward.
Hillary Clinton’s sure victory certainly also explains the likely warping of the FISA courts by FBI careerists seeking to use a suspect dossier to surveille Trump associates — and the apparent requests by Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and others to read surveilled transcripts of Trump associates, unmask names, and leak them to pet reporters.
Again, all these insiders were playing the careerist odds. What we view as reprehensible behavior, they at the time considered wise investments that would earn rewards with an ascendant President Hillary Clinton.
No surprise what the politician’s main concern is about….$$$$
An Indiana legislative report estimates state and local governments would lose nearly $11 million a year in revenue under the proposed elimination of fees for lifetime handgun permits.
The House Ways and Means Committee endorsed the change Monday, sending it to the Republican-dominated House for consideration.
Those seeking lifetime permits to carry a handgun in public now pay fees of up to $125 are mostly split between state and local police agencies.
Some Republicans have sought a full repeal of Indiana’s handgun permit law, saying it infringes on gun owners’ Second Amendment rights. Legislators compromised by proposing to eliminate the permit fee starting in July 2019.
House Ways and Means Chairman Tim Brown says he expects that the new two-year state budget adopted in 2019 will address the fee-revenue loss.
Standard Slugs For Thugs
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A license to carry handgun owner shot and killed a man who fired at him in an apartment parking lot in north Austin Saturday.
Austin police identified the man who died as Darwin Jimenez, 21. They say he died around 5:20 p.m. at the scene of the shooting at 1070 Mearns Meadow Blvd., despite Austin-Travis County EMS’ efforts to resuscitate him.
Austin Police Department homicide investigators say it appears a verbal altercation that turned into a shootout began when a man pulled into the Arbors of Austin Apartments parking lot. Jimenez and some other men were allegedly sitting inside a car and began yelling at the driver, who ignored them as he pulled into a parking space. Jimenez and the others drove up as the man got out of his car, and Jimenez and someone else got out.
Police say Jimenez started shooting at the man, who pulled out his handgun from his car and fired back. He and Jimenez did not know each other.
Birdshot For Thugs
Bungler gets it in the chest from a shotgun and he was “conscious and combative when emergency responders arrived,” ??!!
Dump the birdshot people! 4″ought” or larger.
LAKELAND, Fla. —
A 19-year-old intruder was shot when he kicked the door of a home in Lakeland open, authorities said.
Officers said Gabriel Jacobs, 19, woke up a husband and wife in their home around 3 a.m. on Shorewood Place by ringing their doorbell.
While the wife went to call police, her husband attempted to speak with Jacobs through their closed front door, but police said Jacobs continued to yell profanities and kick at it while repeatedly ringing the doorbell.
Authorities said the husband warned Jacobs multiple times that he had a shotgun and to stop, but Jacobs kicked opened the front door.
In a release from Lakeland’s Police Department they said Jacobs walked through the doorway toward the homeowner, even though he was being warned not to.
As the teenager stepped closer, the homeowner shot Jacobs once in the chest with his shotgun, police said.
Jacobs was conscious and combative when emergency responders arrived, according to police. He was taken to Lakeland Regional Health and is critical condition.
So, yesterday, the FBI Director goes to Congress and reads the classified Intelligence Committee memo, then today, he fires his Deputy Director…No, nothing to connect these two things….nothing at all.
Top FBI official Andrew McCabe has been “removed” from his post as deputy director, Fox News is told, leaving the bureau after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans including President Trump.
A source confirmed to Fox News that McCabe is taking “terminal leave” – effectively taking vacation until he reaches his planned retirement in a matter of weeks. As such, he will not be reporting to work at the FBI anymore.
The move was first reported by NBC News.
Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe announced plans to retire in 2018. He has been heavily criticized by President Trump but who is he?Video
Who is FBI’s Andrew McCabe?
McCabe has long been a controversial figure at the bureau.
Republicans have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party, considering his wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015 and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe.
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 11, 2017, while testifying before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on major threats facing the U.S.
McCabe was former FBI Director James Comey’s right-hand man
Trump himself tweeted in December: “How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?”
Texas church shooting hero Stephen Willeford will be attending this year’s State of the Union address as a guest of Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas).
Breitbart News reported that Willeford, who lives near First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, learned of the shooting as it was happening. He opened his safe, grabbed his AR-15 and a handful of bullets and ran toward the church to intervene. In the urgency of the moment he did not even stop to put on shoes.
Upon reaching the church Willeford shot the attacker twice, causing him to flee the scene. Willeford then climbed into a pickup truck driven by Johnnie Langendorff and the two chased the attacker until he wrecked his vehicle and died, reportedly committing suicide.
As I noted here, this purge was several years in the making, and I was – inadvertently – the one who touched it off. In August 2010, when I gave a talk on Islam and jihad to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force — one of many such talks I gave to government agencies and military groups in those years. While some had counseled me to keep these talks quiet so as to avoid attracting the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the possibility of that pressure seemed to me to make it all the more important to announce my appearances publicly, so as to show that the U.S. government was not going to take dictation from a group linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Those who had urged silence were proven correct, however, for the Obama administration was indeed disposed to take dictation from CAIR. CAIR sent a series of letters to Mueller and others demanding that I be dropped as a counter-terror trainer; the organization even started a “coalition” echoing this demand, and Jesse Jackson and other Leftist luminaries joined it.
At the FBI, Mueller made no public comment on CAIR’s demand, and so it initially appeared that CAIR’s effort had failed. But I was never again invited to provide counter-terror training for any government agency, after having done so fairly regularly for the previous five years. CAIR’s campaign to keep me from taking part in counter-terror training was, of course, not personal. They targeted me simply because I told the truth, just as they would target anyone else who dared do so. Everyone else who told the truth was similarly targeted and purged.
While the Democratic Party press tries to pump life into Bob Mueller’s going-nowhere-fast Russia investigation, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley continues to burrow into the real scandal: the corruption of the Department of Justice and the FBI by Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Yesterday he and Lindsay Graham sent letters to the Democratic National Committee, Hillary for America (HFA), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former DNC Chairman Donna Brazile, HFA Chairman John Podesta, and HFA’s Chief Strategist, Joel Benenson. These letters request documents and information about the individuals’ and organizations’ relationship to the Fusion GPS fake dossier on Donald Trump.
Grassley and Graham request responses to these questions by February 8. They are, obviously, good questions, but there is no way they will be answered. The DNC and the other parties to whom they were sent will stonewall, evade, obfuscate and lie. Congressional investigations are pretty much useless, not because the investigators are incompetent–they generally aren’t–but because they have no realistic way to compel truthful responses. Serving interrogatories and document requests in litigation, which is essentially what Grassley is doing here, works because the rules of civil procedure compel parties to respond, and a judge presides over every civil lawsuit. If a party refuses to answer, provides evasive and inadequate responses, or lies, the judge can impose a variety of meaningful sanctions.
Here, we simply have a letter requesting information. The Democrats to whom it is addressed will either ignore it, respond in risibly inadequate fashion, or lie. And there probably isn’t anything the Senate Judiciary Committee can do about it. Still, it is good to see that Grassley and Graham are at least trying to get at the truth with regard to what shapes up as the biggest scandal in American political history.
Just what we need…..not.
Venezuela is totally out of sync with most of Latin America and the Caribbean as it has headed in an increasingly autocratic direction politically, marked by stunningly inept economic mismanagement, reminiscent of Zimbabwe under Mugabe and the Congo under Mobuto. The problem is that as Venezuela sinks deeper into socioeconomic misery, many of its citizens are opting to leave. At the same time, the authoritarian regime continues to function as major conduit for illicit drugs in Latin America and the Caribbean, such is the need for cash among the Chavismo political elite. In a sense, the Venezuelan house is on fire and the neighbors are increasingly nervous of the spread of its problems into the region.
Venezuela is a mess. It clings on the edge of total debt default only thanks to the timely recent assistance of Russian money. At the same time, the economy has imploded—oil production and exports are struggling, inflation has zipped well above 2,000 percent (into the realm of hyperinflation), unemployment is in excess of 20 percent, and there are growing numbers of outbreaks of looting in the face of widespread shortages of food and basic goods. By one estimate, Venezuela’s economy has contracted by 40 percent in per capita terms from 2013 to 2017, while the country has one of the world’s highest homicide rates.
President Nicolas Maduro survives by the graces of military support, Cuban advisers, a shrinking base of socialists and communist diehards in the Chavismo movement, help from criminal organizations, a base of voters dependent on food from the state, and external support from China and Russia. The regime is active in suppressing dissent, using institutions that have been coerced and, when necessary, willing to use lethal force as exemplified by the January killing of the charismatic rebel leader, Oscar Perez, a former police officer and movie actor. Last year more than one hundred people were killed in popular opposition to the regime. Maduro is also helped by an opposition that has been unable to unify on a lasting basis.
Venezuela’s next presidential election is supposed to be held in April. Maduro has “offered” to run again and is expected to win. The regime’s mantra is when the game looks competitive, change the rules.
How do civil wars happen?
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.
That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.
I know you’re all thinking about President Trump.
He won and the establishment, the media, the democrats, rejected the results. They came up with a whole bunch of conspiracy theories to explain why he didn’t really win. It was the Russians. And the FBI. And sexism, Obama, Bernie Sanders and white people.
It’s easier to make a list of the things that Hillary Clinton doesn’t blame for losing the election. It’s going to be a short list.
A really short list. Herself.
The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this.
The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.
Trump didn’t really win the election. Bush didn’t really win the election. Every time a Republican president won an election this century, the Democrats insist he didn’t really win.
Now say a third Republican president wins an election in say, 2024.
What are the odds that they’ll say that he didn’t really win? Right now, it looks like 100 percent.
What do sure odds of the Dems rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win.
It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.
That’s a civil war.
There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.
This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement.
You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship.
Your very own dictatorship.