Monday, April 21, 2025

Fla. Recount Lawyer Marc Elias Helped Dems Gain ‘Dark Money’ Fundraising Edge

0

‘The resolution is not whether the campaign finance system ought to be more regulated … My proposition is simply this: It is broken as it sits today…’

Note: This is the fourth in a multi-part series examining Democrat attorney Marc Elias. This article covers Elias’ role in loosening campaign finance laws. Other articles in the series explore Elias’ involvement in election recounts, ‘sue till blue’ redistricting and orchestrating the infamous Steele dossier.

Marc Elias/IMAGE: Maxwell School of Syracuse University

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) In 2013, Democrat attorney Marc Elias, a partner at the Perkins Coie firm who had served as general counsel for the John Kerry presidential campaign, joined a panel at Syracuse University to discuss campaign finance reform.

In his introductory remarks, Elias offered a revealing anecdote about his own motivations: “My daughter reminded me that when she was 6 and asked me to play a board game with her, the first thing I did, being a lawyer, was I said, ‘Fine, I’ll play Chutes and Ladders, but I want to read the instructions, because I want to figure out how I can win.”

Whether the goal is beating his 6-year-old daughter at a children’s board game, or defrauding American voters and taxpayers by exploiting the vulnerabilities in their most trusted institutions, Elias has been very good at winning for the past two decades.

He has represented a veritable who’s who of left-wing figures, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren.

But lest some liberals see in his efforts a sort of nobility, or at least fair play—using the rules of the game to re-rig, in the Left’s favor, systems that Elias sincerely believed had been rigged against them—his other pursuits, such as loosening campaign-finance laws and shielding his clients from ethics violations, leave no doubt that Elias’s idea of ‘winning’ is not for the betterment of society.

In his current role representing incumbent U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D.-Fla., in the most expensive Congressional race to date, whatever the outcome, Elias could see big returns thanks to a 2014 spending-bill rider he helped Congressional leaders to write that raised by more than sevenfold the amount wealthy donors could contribute to national campaign committees for things like attorney’s fees.

 

‘Doing It to Win’

Illegal Ballots Were Mixed into Broward County, Fla. Election Results
Brenda Snipes/IMAGE: YouTube

In a statement Elias made about the current Florida recount—in which his client, Nelson, has trailed behind current Gov. Rick Scott by a narrow margin—Elias said, “We’re doing this not just because it’s automatic, but we’re doing it to win.”

A last-minute coup for Nelson—whose deficit already has narrowed from more than 50,000 votes on Election Day evening to around 12,500 a week later, as boxes of unaccounted-for ballots continued turning up in Broward County under elections supervisor Brenda Snipes—would not be a surprise to anyone.

“My predictions come true with a remarkable degree of accuracy on these things,” Elias said in a conference call interview last Thursday, reported by leftist blog Talking Points Memo.

Even while liberal publications like Mother Jones highlight Elias’s “longshot” plan to recalibrate voting machines in order to discover a supposed 24,000 Democratic “undervotes” on the Senate ticket, a judge in Broward County denied Scott’s request to impound the machines in order to prevent tampering, saying there was nothing substantiating Scott’s accusations of dirty tricks, the Sun Sentinel reported.

“If someone in this county has evidence of voter fraud, they should report it to their local law enforcement officer,” said Broward Circuit Judge Jack Tuter, before chiding Scott for even insinuating the possibility of Orwellian impropriety: “We need to be careful what we say. Words mean things.”

 

Lawyer First, Democrat Second

FAKE? Dem Senate Candidate Talks of Her Homelessness
Kyrsten Sinema/Photo by Gage Skidmore (CC)

In a profile from Politico, as reported by The Washington Free Beacon, Elias said he was “a lawyer first and a Democrat second.”

However, he has no difficulty in blurring the lines between the two.

In addition to providing legal representation, Elias and his firm have also played a major role in the flow of money to and from Democratic national committees. Perkins Coie notoriously served as the intermediary and money handlers for its clients in the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee with Fusion GPS, through which Elias commissioned opposition research on then-candidate Donald Trump.

The Free Beacon noted that in the past Elias has effectively helped to shield Democratic politicians such as Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill and Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes amid separate accusations that each inappropriately used Senate or campaign funds for luxurious travel expenses.

Some cases have involved political conflicts of interest, such as Grimes’ case, in which she chartered vehicles from her father’s catering company. Elias also was deployed for damage control when North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan’s husband was found to be receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal stimulus grants, and in another case where Nevada’s Harry Reid attempted to funnel $31,000 in campaign funding to his granddaughter as a “holiday gift.”

However, while rendering legal services and representing politicians on the campaign trail, Elias and his firm may have their own conflicts of interest to deal with. Campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org ranked Perkins Coie in the top 5 percent of more than 18,000 PACs and organizations it tracks for political contributions.

Nearly all of its contributions all go to Democrats, including two major clients, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which it gave just under $74,000 and $32,000 respectively for the 2018 campaign.

Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, who recently managed to overcome an Election Day deficit to best Republican Martha McSally, was another of the firm’s top recipients, receiving nearly $21,000.

 

A Broken System

Former Sen. Harry Reid has Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer
Harry Reid/Photo by Center for American Progress Action Fund (CC)

Despite his firm’s mutually serving generosity with Democrats, though, Elias has tried to fashion himself as a champion of campaign finance reform.

Former Federal Election Commission chairman Robert Lenhard told Politico, “There is no Democratic-side campaign finance lawyer who is more important than Marc Elias—that is without a doubt.”

But the issue Elias has is not so much reining in the massive spending and closing loopholes that allow an influx of dark money into races like the one in Florida.

Rather than use his legal clout to challenge the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision, which afforded First Amendment protections to small businesses like a conservative film production company seeking to make non-monetary political contributions, Elias went the other direction, paving the way for mega-corporations like his law firm and billionaire plutocrat clients to have nearly unfettered ability to donate.

Elias, in his 2013 consortium at Syracuse University, said, “The resolution is not whether the campaign finance system ought to be more regulated or ought to be less regulated … my proposition is simply this: It is broken as it sits today.”

A year later, he had achieved his goal of “fixing” the system. Working with his longtime client Reid, the departing Senate majority leader—in cooperation with then-House Speaker John Boehner—Elias helped slip into a year-end $1.1 billion spending bill a rider that raised the amount a wealthy individual donor could give to national party committees from $97,200 to $777,600, according to Politico.

Not surprisingly, the 2018 midterms broke records as being the most expensive on the books, and topping all others is the Florida senate race, which yielded more than $180 million in spending, with roughly half being outside (non-candidate) spending.

In the top eight Senate races alone for the 2018 election cycle, all of which were in tightly fought battleground states, the total cost was $840 million. This is more money than the projected 2018 Gross Domestic Product of 11 of the world’s 193 countries, according to the International Monetary Fund—and certain only to increase in 2020.

Of course, one of the restrictions lifted in the 2014 spending rider was on money that could be applied toward legal fees, Politico noted, “including some for legal fees that are likely going to be collected by [Elias’] own firm.”

As Elias told Politico, his area of law “is always interesting and usually rewarding.”

Florida Recount Lawyer Marc Elias Helped Dems Orchestrate Fake ‘Steele Dossier’ Scandal

0

‘Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year…’

Note: This is the third in a multi-part series examining Democrat attorney Marc Elias. This article covers Elias’ role as the middle man between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Fusion GPS firm in commissioning the infamous ‘Steele dossier’ in 2016. Other articles in the series explore Elias’ role in election recounts, ‘sue till blue’ redistricting and shielding politicians under investigation for financial improprieties.

Marc Elias/IMAGE: Michael McIntee and The Uptake via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) For the past two decades, Marc Elias, the chief political law attorney at Perkins Coie, representing many top-level Democrats, has been directly implicated in nefarious election-related practices through redistricting and recounts.

However, in his capacity as official counsel for the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, Elias’ guiding hand in seemingly corrupting and politicizing the nation’s most trusted government institutions went beyond the courtroom and into the highest reaches of America’s law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering apparati.

Despite its failure to derail the candidacy and subsequent presidency of Donald Trump, the Steele dossier—in which Elias likely played a pivotal role—has proved a source of constant distraction and polarization during the first two years of Trump’s administration, while further eroding an already shaken public trust in the ethics, motives and allegiances of “deep state” bureaucratic officials.

Stealing Elections?

As previously reported, Marc Elias has a long history of turning narrow losses for Democrats into victories—where questionable ballots appear after the race already has been all but certified.

Most recently, he has led the effort in Florida, where recounts are currently underway in both the Senate race between Democrat incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson and Republican Gov. Rick Scott, and in the gubernatorial race between Democrat Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum and Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis.

With Republicans still holding an edge early Monday, Broward County, which is notorious for election mismanagement and possible fraud, was continuing to find new votes, as Trump tweeted Monday:

In addition to having a hand in many such recount efforts—some giving Democrats in Congress a majority or supermajority—Elias also had a lead role, circumventing many state legislatures, in a redistricting push that targeted several tossup states.

Barring any court reversals, the results in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina and, of course, Florida will likely turn some of Trump’s key 2016 battleground victories into a solid blue in 2020.

Trump downplayed the possible implications in his own re-election efforts, expressing confidence that his margins of support would be strong enough to overcome the handicaps of a stacked deck.

But there is plenty of reason for Trump to be worried as Elias played a part in launching the “witch hunt” that has become the single greatest headache of Trump’s presidency thus far: helping to commission a dubiously sourced, largely debunked piece of opposition research known as the Steele dossier.

Steele-ing the Presidency

Clintonistas Fed Info to Trump Dossier Author Steele
Christopher Steele/IMAGE: YouTube

British newspaper The Independent said that it was Elias, working on behalf of Clinton and the DNC, who in April 2016 retained Fusion GPS—the research firm that compiled information about the Trump campaign from ex-British spy Christopher Steele.

The reports and research Steele generated then were given directly to Elias during the course of the election.

The unverified claims, many of which eventually went public after leaking to the media, included not only the suggestion that Trump campaign officials had colluded with Russia to hack DNC servers, but also sordid and salacious rumors suggesting the Russians had compromising information to blackmail Trump.

All indications are that Elias’ law firm, Perkins Coie, helped funnel money from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to Fusion GPS. As Breitbart noted recently, that included a combined total of $9.2 million from Clinton and the DNC for “legal and compliance consulting” in the span from around November 2015 to December 2016.

In the course of doing his research, Steele, in turn, likely paid off several Kremlin-linked Russians to provide the suspect information, meaning the DNC may have been supporting the very same people who had hacked its servers in order to try to implicate Trump in the hacking.

When The Washington Post first broke the story in October 2017 that linked Elias and Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS, Elias “vigorously” denied any involvement to New York Times reporter Ken Vogel.

It was no surprise he turned to Vogel, a sympathetic ear who, while operating as chief investigative reporter at Politico, showed a penchant for hounding conservative philanthropists Charles and David Koch. Prior to the 2016 election, Vogel was outed by Wikileaks and criticized by other media institutions for vetting his articles with the DNC before publication.

According to The Daily Caller, “Elias’ denial appears to have been intentionally misleading in light of new reporting … [that] Elias reportedly hired Fusion to dig up dirt on Trump as part of a project that became the Trump dossier.”

But even liberals’ vaunted Gray Lady knew it couldn’t maintain the ruse. Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted:

Reporting at the time claimed that the opposition research into Trump had originally begun during the Republican primary race, when an anonymous GOP donor had secured Fusion GPS.

Although those on the Left pointed to this as justification, suggesting it was about Trump’s character and not partisan politics, most of Trump’s main GOP contenders cast doubt on the claim, with The Washington Examiner‘s Byron York saying “GOP donor” was likely a case of semantic games.

“The reason it is not at all believable that a Republican was behind it is, nobody used [any information] from it,” Terry Sullivan, campaign manager for Sen. Marco Rubio, told York.  “Everybody was pretty damn desperate at the end. If someone had a kitchen sink, they would have thrown it.”

Only the Beginning…

Gowdy Implies Clintonista Sydney Blumenthal Fed Steele Info 1
Sydney Blumenthal/IMAGE: CNBC via YouTube

Efforts to unravel the web of intrigue surrounding the source of the Steele dossier led Republicans in the House Oversight, Intelligence and Judiciary committees down a seemingly endless trail of rabbit holes, pointing toward a rogue’s gallery of leftist conspirators such as billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and unsavory Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal.

But the smear attack that Elias helped orchestrate was merely the prelude to the real story, as Obama’s Justice Department and FBI soon took up the cause.

At the same time that the DNC and Clinton campaign discontinued their funding of the Fusion GPS research in October 2016, the FBI began making payments to Steele and Fusion GPS related to their investigations into the Russian conspiracy charges.

In May 2017, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed to lead an investigation into the claims. While it appears likely to conclude soon—either due to Mueller’s completion or due to pressure from acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker—the investigation continues to lend fuel to Democrats’ attacks on Trump.

Although no corroborating evidence has yet been presented publicly linking Trump with any collusion or campaign violations, as a result of the investigation that the Steele accusations spawned, several Trump associates have been prosecuted on unrelated white-collar charges. Some having struck plea deals with Mueller in return for lighter sentencing.

Meanwhile, Trump has succeeded in using the allegations to expose the corruption of several top-ranking “deep state” officials. Among the revelations are that:

  • A top DOJ official, Bruce Ohr, functioned as a liaison between Steele and the law-enforcement agencies while his wife was working at Fusion GPS.
  • The FBI continued to use the information from the dossier, despite a lack of corroborative evidence, to apply for multiple warrants through the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to spy on the Trump campaign under false pretenses.
 1
Peter Strzok/IMAGE: Fox Business via Youtube
  • The former FBI counterintelligence chief, Peter Strzok, was a vicious and remorseless partisan who not only pushed the Russia conspiracy in an effort to set up Trump, but simultaneously worked to actively suppress information implicating Hillary Clinton in an e-mail scandal that he also oversaw.
  • Strzok exchanged many text messages expressing his intentions with his paramour, FBI attorney Lisa Page, who was one of the initial investigators working for Mueller to investigate Trump’s involvement with Russia. The lovebirds’ actions were strongly repudiated in a report by the DOJ inspector general, despite claims that there was no political bias in the investigations.
  • Strzok’s boss, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was married to Jill McCabe—a 2015 candidate for a Virginia state election who received $700,000 in campaign cash from a close Clinton ally and former fundraiser, then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, while her husband was overseeing the investigation into Clinton. McCabe also was accused of using FBI resources to benefit his wife’s campaign.
  • Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who took direct oversight of the Mueller investigation when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, was revealed to have had conversations with McCabe about wearing a wire in meetings with Trump in order to ensnare the president.
  • Several high-ranking former FBI officials, including McCabe and former Director James Comey, likely used selective leaking of information to the media in order to extend their investigations and gain leverage with the FISA courts. One or the other—or both—then likely lied about doing so in testimony before Congress.

Whether Elias, as  Clinton’s top campaign lawyer, was simply a cog in the machine or a ringleader in these efforts remains unknown.

While Trump attempted to declassify several crucial documents related to the Steele dossier, FISA applications and FBI investigation, the DOJ quickly tamped down his efforts to do so in September, despite Congressional calls for transparency.

With the House soon to hand over the reins to Democrats in the next Congress, the crucial questions are unlikely to soon be answered, though many more continue to be raised.

Dem. Attorney Marc Elias Used Activist Courts to Redraw GOP Districts

‘When a party loses a statewide election, it’s not because their opponents have cleverly divided their voters into a district or two … it’s the product of a larger political failure…’

Note: This is the second in a multi-part series examining Democrat attorney Marc Elias. This article covers Elias’ role in state redistricting challenges. Other articles will explore Elias’ role in election recounts, the Steele dossier and campaign fundraising violations.

Dem. Attorney Marc Elias Used Activist Court Rulings to Redraw GOP Districts(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Attorney Marc Elias, touted as Democrats’ go-to guy for issues related to recounts and redistricting, has had his work cut out for him following the recent midterm election.

Elias, the chairman of political law practice at high-power firm Perkins Coie, boasts a long track record of reversing Republican victories through the recount process—typically under dubious circumstances.

Most recently, he has been secured by incumbent Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson to fight his narrow election-night loss to Republican challenger Rick Scott. With other contentious legal disputes emerging in the Florida and Georgia gubernatorial elections and the Arizona Senate race, Elias will likely have some kind of a role.

But while Elias, who was general counsel for both the Hillary Clinton and John Kerry presidential campaigns, now has his moment in the national spotlight to shift the political power structure toward the Democrats, he also has been working behind the scenes for much longer to steer the election—by challenging the redistricting functions of state legislatures within the court system.

The direct result of his efforts included several Democratic congressional pickups in swing states like Virginia and a bluer map for the 2020 presidential election in states that once were highly competitive.

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee’s war-chest—already far outpaced by the well-heeled left—was forced to dedicate additional resources to contests in places that once had been all but assured, and taxpayers continue to line Elias’s pockets challenging the rulings of activist left-wing tribunals that have been tied up in the court system.

The Gerrymandering Obsession

During a recent episode of “The View,” liberal co-host Joy Behar lamented the mixed election results in which Republicans were able to maintain and even build on their small majority in the U.S. Senate.

This Senate majority not only assures an easier road to judicial and Cabinet appointments for at least the next two years, but also helps to protect President Donald Trump from removal should Democrats in the House of Representatives seek to impeach him for partisan reasons.

As ABC political analyst Matthew Dowd discussed Democrats’ winning the popular vote turnout contest while still losing politically in the Senate races, Behar interjected, “Because of gerrymandering.”

Behar’s knee-jerk response was not only revealing of her limited scope of political knowledge, but also of the party’s obsession with the notion that the system is inherently rigged against them, which in turn justifies their efforts to re-rig in their favor by any means necessary.

In the face of President Barack Obama’s staggering losses during his two terms—netting a total of more than 1,030 seats flipped to the GOP in state and national races—the Left desperately needed a scapegoat.

Obama’s first midterm, in 2010, during which Democrats lost an unprecedented six Senate seats, six governorships and 63 House seats, flipped the House and sent a clear message about the Affordable Care Act that had been passed a few months earlier, as well as the condition of the economy and other crucial issues regarding the direction of the country.

Rather than see the elections as a mandate on Obama’s policies or divisiveness, though, Democrats instead sought to blame the institution that failed them (as they frequently have been apt to do—whether it is the Electoral College, campaign finance, the filibuster, the court system), even if it may have benefited them in the past.

 1
The Gerry-Mander/IMAGE: Public Domain

Their main nemesis du jour was gerrymandering, the redistricting process that got its name from Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry in 1812, when it was first implemented to give the party in power an electoral advantage. The word was a portmanteau of Gerry’s name and the salamander-like district that he had signed off on creating.

To be certain, the practice—typically done after every 10-year Census—has created some egregiously shaped districts in many states, with tentacles spreading into pockets of affluence or poverty or separating urban and rural areas in order to consolidate voters most likely to lean a certain way. It may, justifiably, feel like disfranchisement for some living in districts where their voting power is diminished.

However, few have disputed in the past that if consistently applied it benefits both parties, resulting in a sort of imperfect stasis, another factor in the political calculus that functions as a sort of check and balance from one election to the next, with no cleaner way of ensuring fairness and accountability having been provided for under the law.

In a piece Politico published last year as prelude to a potentially landmark Supreme Court case, author Jeff Greenfield noted that the Left’s “defeats did not happen because of gerrymandering … In order for the GOP to use its power to entrench its majorities, it had to win those majorities in the first place.”

The article continued, “That happened because Republicans and their conservative allies poured resources into a workmanlike effort to win control over state politics, while Democrats were mesmerized by the more glamorous fight to win and hold the White House.”

As Greenfield noted, Republican gains in the Senate and governor’s races actually served as an argument against the Left’s gerrymandering excuse, since it is impossible to redistrict them without redrawing the state lines.

“What has happened, rather, is that the Democratic Party has lost touch not just with the white working class, of which we’ve heard so much this past year, but with a much broader segment of American voters,” Greenfield said.

“When a party loses a statewide election, it’s not because their opponents have cleverly divided their voters into a district or two, or because their voters are ‘clustered’ in a city or two; it’s the product of a larger political failure.”

Redistricting from the Bench

Whether or not it was a symptom of a larger political failure and being out of touch with a critical mass of voters, that didn’t stop Democrats from wanting to right the wrong by rigging the system in their favor.

If Republicans were going to use state legislatures and elected offices to entrench their power, the Democrats would need to use activist courts and the un-elected bureaucracy to unravel the laws.

Their first big break came as the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases emerging from the 2011 redistricting: Gill vs. Whitford in Wisconsin, which plaintiffs argued favored Republicans, and Benisek vs. Lamone in Maryland, in which Democrats in power had redrawn a district to eliminate a Republican seat.

However, the high court (with now retired Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the swing vote) decided that the cases lacked standing, and that each individual district would need to handle its own suit rather than a statewide one.

Although this would seem a break for Republicans, the failure to resolve the issue—instead punting it back to the state level—ultimately empowered attorneys like Elias to take advantage of more favorable situations, such as the liberal-friendly Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Dem. Attorney Marc Elias Used Activist Court Rulings to Redraw GOP Districts 1
North Carolina’s Congressional districts/IMAGE: USA Today via Youtube

Elias took up cases in Virginia and North Carolina (which had a long history of challenging districts in the courts), joining other suits to argue that the existing districts were racist.

Working with state-level officials, some of whom he previously had helped install through election recounts, he was able to circumvent the GOP-led legislatures using “sue till blue” litigation that was extremely costly to taxpayers and highly lucrative for the Perkins Coie law firm.

Although the legislatures continued to challenge the cases, with the litigation tied up before the midterm election, state-level Democrats were empowered to implement their own redrawn maps.

Of four closely watched races in Virginia where the GOP had incumbents, Democrats flipped three seats. In North Carolina, Republicans managed to fend off several traditionally red seats by minuscule margins but were forced to devote unprecedented resources to doing so as outside money flooded in from the Left.

The greatest impact, though, may have been in Pennsylvania, where Democrats managed to flip four districts in the area surrounding Philadelphia after the state Supreme Court forced a map redraw. (Republicans were able to flip one previously Democratic district as well.)

Even if Elias had no hands-on involvement, he was certainly watching with interest from the sidelines.

Barring any new developments in court rulings, the impact of the Pennsylvania decision—as well as those in Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin and other potential battleground states targeted in the redistricting initiative—will most certainly be to upset the balance and turn once competitive states into a blue wall, effectively disfranchising voters in vast swaths of rural areas while disproportionately weighting the urban population.

Rather than rest on their laurels, though, the Left will not stop until it is in complete control. As liberal activist David Daley told left-skewing political website Vox, “The Democrats made some gains, but I’m not sure that they made enough gains to ensure that they have a reasonable voice in the process.”

Fla. Sen. Nelson, Trailing in His Race, Hires Left’s Most Dangerous Supervillain

Note: This is the first in a multi-part series examining some of the activities of Democrat attorney Marc Elias. This article covers Elias’ questionable practices while contesting close political races and securing disputed election results. Future articles will explore Elias’ role in state redistricting efforts, the Steele dossier and campaign fundraising violations.

Democrat attorney Marc Elias/IMAGE: Maxwell School of Syracuse University via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) As incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson, D.-Fla., watched his seat slip away by a narrow margin on Tuesday, adding another pickup into the GOP win column, the idea of conceding defeat may have been the last thing on his mind.

Instead, Nelson called on liberal super-attorney Marc Elias, the chair of the Political Law Group at the powerful D.C. firm Perkins Coie, who for more than two decades has been helping the Left secure dubious election victories under questionable circumstances.

Among the accolades on Elias’ Perkins Coie biography is a Washington Post description of him as a “go-to lawyer for Democrats in recount fights and redistricting battles.”

If asked to name the Left’s most dangerous figures, many may come to mind—from shadowy plutocrats like George Soros to violent Antifa radicals to deceitful deep-state partisans like Peter Strzok.

But when it comes to having a direct impact on undermining the fabric of democracy and tilting the scales leftward, Elias—despite often operating in plain site and under the most mundane of circumstances—stands above the rest.

Although not typically a household name, he has had his hand in nearly every recent court challenge brought by the national Democratic Party, was the general counsel of the Hillary Clinton and John Kerry campaigns, and served as personal attorney to figures like Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

A Checkered Past

Ever since the Supreme Court was tapped to settle 2000’s disputed Bush vs. Gore recount in Florida, the importance of a powerful legal presence in elections is not taken for granted. As voting is an imperfect art, riddled with broken machines and dimpled chads—not to mention modern-era hacking concerns—it sometimes comes down to who can force, extend or stop a recount at the right moment.

Democrats have been remarkably blunt about the use of no-holds-barred tactics deployed in narrow races, whether it is through soft intimidation, voter fraud or placing corrupt officials in key positions to certify the vote. Even if their skulduggery is later discovered, once an oath is taken or a precedent established, it is difficult to reverse.

From his first high-profile case, representing Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, a trail of voter-fraud accusations has followed Elias’ clients, along with a pattern of repeated recounts that result in Republican victories getting overturned by the narrowest of margins.

Several of the Senate candidates Elias secured unlikely victories for early in their careers, such as Washington’s Maria Cantwell and Montana’s Jon Tester, remain vital to the current Democratic caucus.

Minnesota (2008)

One of Elias’ major successes was in Minnesota, securing “Saturday Night Live” comedian Al Franken a spot in the Senate, which gave Democrats a filibuster-proof 60-vote supermajority in 2008.

When Election Day ended, Republican Norm Coleman had the advantage by 215 votes, which triggered an automatic recount. As votes were contested and re-examined by state officials, shockingly, several bags of ballots were reported to have gone missing from Democrat-friendly areas, only to be ‘rediscovered’ after Elias sent a letter to the precincts.

The votes—which Coleman contended were likely duplicates or otherwise illicitly recorded—gave Franken the edge by 312. Despite Coleman’s wish to continue fighting the court battle, Franken and Elias forcefully insisted that Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty certify the race for him so that newly elected President Barack Obama could commence his legislative agenda. Democrat Secretary of State Mark Richie joined Franken and Elias in petitioning the courts to force the issue, and ultimately certified in Franken’s favor.

In addition to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the mystery ballots, U.S. News & World Report later noted that approximately 400 felons in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area had been allowed to vote in the election; others estimated it even higher.

Virginia (2013) and North Carolina (2016)

When Elias cropped up again in the 2013 challenge of Virginia’s attorney general race, few were surprised that ballots again began to miraculously appear. The race had narrowly propelled former Democratic National Committee chair and close Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe to the governor’s mansion, but Republican AG candidate Mark Obenshain stood in the way of a complete Democratic routing that would help turn the formerly red state a solid blue prior to Hillary Clinton’s presidential run.

Obenshain capped off election night with a 1,200 vote lead, but soon thereafter, new votes started getting discovered in Virginia’s liberal enclaves of Richmond and Fairfax that left Democrat Mark Herring victorious with a certified margin of 165 votes. Obenshain subsequently requested a recount, which boosted Herring’s lead to around 900.

By November 2016, Elias was gaining a reputation for being enmeshed in suspicious campaign operations like Fusion GPS’s Steele dossier. However, that didn’t stop North Carolina’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Roy Cooper, from securing him in a fight against Republican incumbent Pat McCrory.

Like its northern neighbor Virginia, the Tar Heel State seemed vulnerable to a blue conversion, but McCrory, who had famously opposed legislative efforts to mandate transgender bathrooms, stood in the way.

Former Gov. McCrory Compares Statue Vandals to Nazi Book Burners 1
Former N.C. Gov. Pat McCrory

Unlike earlier contests, Elias found himself playing defensive as Cooper finished slightly ahead of McCrory.

With the race too close to call, by a margin of less than 5,000 votes, Cooper declared an election-night victory.

McCrory, however, raised multiple accusations of voter fraud that included Democratic campaign organizations paying people to fill out absentee ballots and counting the votes of dead people.

McCrory also questioned the late arrival of 90,000 votes from left-leaning Durham County on the night of the election that had put Cooper ahead.

Several precincts, including Durham, scoffed at and actively fought McCrory’s call’s for a recount. Not surprisingly, as the ballots in contested areas were re-examined, Cooper’s lead continued to grow, more than doubling to a total of 10,277 by time McCrory ultimately conceded.

Ironically, as he fought to prevent McCrory from due process, the duplicitous Elias was continuing to represent Hillary Clinton and penned a blog post bemoaning the possibility of outside interference in the presidential election. Even though he had never “uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside [emphasis added– ed.] attempts to alter the voting technology,” Elias nonetheless threatened to pursue recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

“It should go without saying that we take these concerns extremely seriously” Elias said. “We certainly understand the heartbreak felt by so many who worked so hard to elect Hillary Clinton, and it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted.”

2018 Recounts

Elias has currently been tapped to represent Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida should the vote tally fall within the 0.5 percent margin to automatically trigger one. As of Thursday, that seemed likely.

Two other possible Democratic challenges could have major political implications. In the Georgia governor’s race, where Democrat Stacey Abrams (48.7 percent) so far has refused to concede, an automatic runoff election would be triggered there if Republican Brian Kemp’s tally (currently at 50.3 percent) fell below the 50 percent mark.

And in the Arizona Senate race to replace Sen. Jeff Flake, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema’s 1 percentage point deficit to Republican Martha McSally means that election officials are now turning to things like the “late early ballots” dropped off at polling places on Election Day.

Election watchers should not be surprised if a bag of votes miraculously turns up in Elias’ trunk to put one or more of his Democratic clients over the top. Stranger things have happened.

“We’re doing this not just because it’s automatic, but we’re doing it to win,” Elias said in a statement about the potential Nelson challenge, the Associated Press reported.

The statement echoed another Elias client, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s shockingly candid response during a 2015 interview discussing his upcoming Senate retirement. When asked why, during the 2012 election, he made a deliberately deceptive statement about GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s tax records, Reid’s reply: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Is House Speaker Paul Ryan to Blame for GOP Midterm Losses?

0

‘Paul Ryan should be focusing on holding the Majority rather than giving his opinions …’

House Immigration Bill Has 'Path to Citizenship' for Illegal Aliens
Donald Trump & Paul Ryan (screen shot: ABC News/Youtube)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) As analysts work to make sense of the mixed outcome from Tuesday’s midterm election, some may wonder whether Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s ineffectiveness in mobilizing the House GOP was responsible for losing the lower chamber to Democrats.

In reality, a complex tapestry of intangible factors—and a few historical constants—played a part.

But the Wisconsin congressman, whose divergence from Trumpism made him a political casualty, certainly had a role in it.

Despite public statements Trump made at rallies that the midterms were a referendum on him, media outlets including the Los Angeles Times and Politico reported that the president privately held the Congress responsible for what he considered to be their elections, and pinned much responsibility on the retiring Ryan for his failure to lead.

Trump publicly said as much last week after Ryan second-guessed the legality of the president’s proposal to repeal birthright citizenship by executive order:

While the two Republican leaders have largely avoided the public disputes that others—even members of Trump’s own cabinet—have engaged in, the exchange offered a window into the out-of-sync dynamic that disappointingly resulted in Congressional gridlock during what should have been the GOP’s shining moment.

Not only did the House struggle to find traction on countless legislative issues, such as balancing the budget and pushing through entitlement reform—two of Ryan’s and Trump’s shared objectives—but the election effort itself seemed fraught with disarray and lackluster candidates going up against a well-funded and well-coordinated Democratic machine.

The morning after the midterm election, Trump posted that candidates who followed his lead for the most part fared well.

A Reluctant Leader

Whether one can cast blame the departing Ryan, one of more than 40 GOP congressmen who decided not to pursue re-election when faced with the daunting road ahead, may be something of a “chicken vs. egg” question that depends on the perspective.

In the six years after being selected as Mitt Romney’s 2012 vice presidential running mate, Ryan, now 48, was branded everything from P90X beefcake to political wunderkind to Ayn-Rand-reading face of neoconservatism to policy wonk determined to fix the tax system to a last-gasp GOP savior following a party mutiny over his predecessor, former Speaker John Boehner.

Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan/IMAGE: CNN via Youtube

Ryan spent 10 terms in Congress, chairing two powerful committees before getting drafted into the speakership. But unbeknownst to him, by time he assumed the gavel in October 2015, the fate of his own political trajectory and legislative ambitions had already been sealed by Trump’s June 2015 ride down a golden escalator to announce his candidacy.

Ryan’s reluctance to step into the role of Congress’s main cat-herder was punctuated by his difference in vision and style from Trump. The former’s career inside the D.C. Beltway had acclimated him to a different kind of deal-brokering—one geared toward sausage-factory compromises, albeit a little too eager to acquiesce to the opposition—than the pragmatic business mogul who embraced conflict and controversy with an eye toward winning big-time.

Like Boehner, Ryan struggled as speaker to bridge the gap among factions and to placate the various stakeholders. As seasoned liberal adversaries like Nancy Pelosi maneuvered to regain power by undermining any legislative action, on Ryan’s right the increasingly vocal House Freedom Caucus quickly lost confidence in him over his lukewarm support of Trump.

Meanwhile, in the world outside D.C., Ryan was less than assured of safeguarding his own working-class district from an embarrassing political defeat at the hands of either a primary challenger or a well-funded progressive like Randy “The Iron Stache” Bryce, who promised to ‘repeal and replace‘ the incumbent.

Publicly, Ryan (who at 16 lost his father to a heart attack) expressed his desire to spend time with his family as his three children approached their teenage years. The shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise last year by a deranged, left-wing radical not only waylaid the legislative agenda for several crucial months, but also, no doubt, added to the psychological toll pressing on Ryan—third in ascension order for the presidency—to step away.

In announcing his retirement in April, Ryan said, “[I]t’s easy to [let politics] take over everything in your life, and you can’t just let that happen because there are other things in life that can be fleeting as well—namely your time as a husband and a dad, which is the other great honor of my life.”

But as Ryan’s mind drifted back to the Badger State, the result was a power vacuum among House GOP leadership that left Trump pulling double duty.

Where other chief executives in his position historically have maintained a low midterm profile in order to avoid making it about their policies and personalities, Trump took ownership, barnstorming across the country in recent weeks.

From a historical perspective, it was a success—his projected loss of 36 seats (with some races on Wednesday still being counted or contested) fell in line with expectations—unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who each ceded control of Congress in their first midterms with losses of 52 and 63 seats, respectively.

In his statement following the loss, Ryan brought out his customarily analytical approach by noting that on average, going back to 1862, the president’s party has lost 32 House seats and two Senate seats in midterm elections (Trump’s Senate is expected to gain three).

“Tonight history has repeated itself,” Ryan said. “A party in power always faces tough odds in its first midterm election.”

But he also acknowledged the new political realities with an appeal to his successors “find common ground” despite the rancor.

“We don’t need an election to know that we are a divided nation, and now we have a divided Washington,” Ryan said. “As a country and a government we must find a way to come together.”

CNN’s Acosta Has Press Pass Suspended for Briefing Room Scuffle

0

‘CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person…’

CNN's Jim Acosta Attacks Trump, Blaming Him for Deadly Events in Charlottesville
Jim Acosta/Photo by Gage Skidmore (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Between interviewing prospective attorneys general and pondering how to find a new way forward until the 2020 election with a now divided government—and an opposition party that made impeaching him its central platform—President Donald Trump probably had enough to worry about on Wednesday.

But that didn’t stop CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta from doggedly trying to steal Trump’s time by questioning the president over the semantics of a caravan approaching the border and whether he was concerned about further indictments in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation.

Following a tense exchange between Trump and Acosta in which the reporter allegedly accosted a female White House staffer, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Twitter late Wednesday night that Acosta’s press pass had been suspended.

Trump already had little patience as soon as Acosta prefaced his question about a statement he made during the close of the election campaign.

“Here we go,” Trump said.

After a gamely exchange that lasted about a minute and a half, in which the two talked over one another and Trump managed to slip in a jab at CNN’s ratings, the president finally told Acosta, “That’s enough.”

However, Acosta refused to yield the mic as a female White House staffer approached to take it.

As Trump stepped away from the podium, Acosta finally handed over the mic.

Trump then lit into him, saying, “I tell you, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person.”

As Acosta attempted to interject, Trump added, “The way you treat [Press Secretary] Sarah Huckabee [Sanders] is horrible.”

In June, CBS published a story that was widely spread suggesting that Sanders, who has been publicly mocked at the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner and forced from a restaurant by intolerant social justice warriors, was considering a departure.

However, Sanders put the rumors to rest, saying on Twitter that she loved her job.

Acosta has often assumed the role of chief antagonist during press briefings, so much so that during Trump campaign rallies, people in the audience would actively look for him in order to heckle with jeers of “CNN sucks.”

The network, in return, which Trump often refers to as “fake news,” has expressed alarm at what it calls Trump’s “hate movement” against the media and have claimed Trump is endangering the press with his rhetoric.

Several times in the past, White House officials have canceled interviews or threatened consequences over Acosta’s rude and unruly behavior.

Obama’s Election Day Gaffe Highlights Left’s Complicated Relationship with Women

0

‘Lord knows we need more women in charge…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Former President Barack Obama took great strides during his time in office to see that the government, not science, had the upper hand in determining people’s gender.

But at a rally in the D.C. suburbs of Northern Virginia, he confoundingly took it a step farther, encouraging voters to replace a Republican woman, Rep. Barbara Comstock, with Democratic Jennifer Wexton because, “Lord knows we need more women in charge,” he said.

Obama pressed forward with a talking point that his party first trotted out during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings that the #MeToo movement would dominate the midterms. Promoting it as a reboot of 1992, liberals have declared—ironically, despite the election of serial abuser Bill Clinton to the nation’s highest office that year—2018 marked the return of the “Year of the Woman.”

But as it did the first time around, the changing context has made the Left’s bid for the female vote a bit awkward on occasion.

On one hand, Democratic politicians like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Vice President Joe Biden have shown a lack of self-awareness by refusing to reconcile their rhetoric with their own misogynist histories.

On the other hand, as Obama proved Tuesday, the Left has no issue with disparaging the wrong “type” of female—i.e. the conservative kind.

Alumni, Faculty at Susan Collins's Alma Mater Demand Revoke of Her Degree
Sen. Susan Collins and Justice Brett Kavanaugh/IMAGE: NBC News via Youtube

While supporting the politically charged and unsubstantiated claims of Kavanaugh accusers—some of whom have since been discredited and admitted to lying—leftist activists didn’t bat an eye in sending death and rape threats to the offices of Maine Sen. Susan Collins after she cast the deciding vote for Kavanaugh.

Likewise, pop-star Taylor Swift made the unusual move of endorsing Tennessee Democratic Senate candidate Phil Bredesen by claiming he would do a better job representing women’s issues than his opponent Marsha Blackburn—an actual woman. Blackburn countered that she represented the issues that mattered to the women of Tennessee.

Although the “Believe all women” slogan was popular for a brief moment during the Kavanaugh hearings, it quickly ran into its limits as Keith Ellison, deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, worked overtime to brush his own abuse scandal under the rug.

Meanwhile, in California’s hotly contested 39th district, several tables were turned as Democrats found themselves rallying around a male millionaire lottery winner, Gil Cisneros, to replace retiring Republican congressman Ed Royce rather than Young Kim, a first-generation Korean-American woman.

Adding insult to injury, Cisneros found himself tamping down claims from another left-wing politician, Melissa Fazli, that after the state Democratic convention, Cisneros had demanded sex in exchange for a campaign contribution. It took a good talking to for Fazli to come around.

“This past week, seeing the pain of Dr. Ford and so many women and the dismissiveness of both Judge Kavanaugh and Washington Republicans, I felt it was important to reach out to meet with Melissa,” Cisneros said, according to Politifact. “… We sat down and heard each other, found a clear case of misunderstanding, and are both ready to move forward.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, who stands poised to head the House Judiciary Committee should Democrats retake the lower chamber, nonetheless joined Cisneros on the campaign trail Tuesday, with a promise to re-open the House investigation into collusion between Trump and Russia during the 2016 campaign, even as special prosecutor Robert Mueller is working to bring his investigation to a close.

Rush Limbaugh Praises Trump’s Tireless Defense of America at Missouri Rally

0

‘We are defending an America that has strayed from our founding…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) In one of the key battleground fronts of the 2018 midterm elections, Missouri, President Donald Trump got an extra boost of support at a rally on the eve of Election Day from conservative heavy-hitter Rush Limbaugh in his hometown of Cape Girardeau.

The radio talk-show host rebuked the accusations that the right-wing had created a “divisive” culture by demanding strong immigration and law-enforcement.

“They say we’re divisive, but we are not divisive,” he said. “We are defending an America that has strayed from our founding.”

Limbaugh, who joked that Trump had imposed a 10-minute time limit on him, began by encouraging the “electric” audience to start a chant “Lock her up” against Hillary Clinton, who has refused to concede her 2016 election defeat and gracefully exit the spotlight.

“Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia. Hillary Clinton rigged that election,” he said.

Limbaugh said that career politicians like the Clintons and Obamas were jealous that Trump had stirred up the conservative base in ways that they had not.

“This isn’t supposed to happen. You people are supposed to love them, not Trump. So guess what? They want to get in on it.”

But he said few had bothered understanding what motivated Trump’s supporters and that there was “much to learn.”

“The bond that exists between you and everybody else that has been to a Trump rally is something that politicians envy, and the people in Washington have not taken the time to understand why you voted for Trump. They just think you are stupid for doing so,” he said.

Some, he said, resented Trump for giving voice to voters that they would rather ignore. “You weren’t being listened to. You weren’t being paid any attention to. Even now, the real anger at Trump is actually at you for having elected him.”

However, Limbaugh dismissed the oft-floated media talking point that fear and anger were what had driven massive conservative turnouts in recent elections. “You’re not angry. You love people! You want your country to be the greatest it can be and you finally got someone willing to help you do it,” he said.

Limbaugh said that Trump—who bucked convention by taking an active role in the midterm campaigns and embracing it as a mandate on his performance rather than distancing himself—had been “indefatigable” his goal of fixing the country. “Donald Trump wants America to be great again—and, it’s not a slogan, it is an objective.”

He observed that while other politicians may have personal gain at stake, Trump had no other motivations for entering the political arena.

“He is one of the most successful people in America and he doesn’t need this. He doesn’t need to put up with the abuse … He does because he sincerely believes that America is headed in the wrong track and it needs to be put back on the right track.”

Forget the Pundits: Data Foretells a Midterm Win for Trump Either Way

0

‘My whole life, you know what I say? “Don’t worry about it, I’ll just figure it out.”’

Trump Claims 'Clear Victory' After Supreme Court Allows Travel Ban
Donald Trump/Photo by Gage Skidmore (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) If President Donald Trump loses a single seat in the House of Representatives during Tuesday’s midterm election, you can be certain some media outlets will be touting it as an unequivocal victory and mandate for “the resistance”—a blue wave, thumpin and shellacking all rolled into one.

But if history is the judge, based on the projected gains and losses at nonpartisan sites such as RealClear Politics, Trump already can declare a victory of sorts.

Although the Democrats need to pick up only 23 seats, the average number of seats lost in a midterm election dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency is 26, according to UC Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project. Thus, Trump could still be ahead of the curve even if the House GOP does lose the majority, provided he keeps it below that. On the eve of Election Day, RCP had the average gains projected by its polls at exactly 26.

Considering only the number of seats being contested and Trump’s average approval rating around 44 percent, UCSB’s historical data suggests the president would lose between 26 and 33 seats as the norm. Recent Democrat-led redistricting efforts might also factor into the calculation.

Interestingly, the UCSB data shows that Trump is the Republican with the highest number of House seats to be contested in the 84-year span (21 midterm elections total, excluding the current one). The president’s combative rhetorical style and populist appeals to “drain the swamp” may be attributable for some of the electoral map difficulty.

Trump’s unwillingness to abide by political norms has resulted in a number of high-profile departures leaving open seats with no incumbent advantage. This includes four retiring GOP senators and more than double the number of GOP congressmen leaving the House as their Democratic colleagues.

However, the Left’s cashflow has also played a huge part in the increased number of contested races. In an election that is on pace to break spending records for congressional elections by around $800 million, according to estimates by the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats have held a clear advantage in fundraising.

State Dept., USAID Sued for Docs on Funding to Soros’s Foreign Campaigns
George Soros/Photo by boellstiftung (CC)

While some have interpreted this as a sign of voter enthusiasm and momentum for the progressive movement, others see it as an indicator of the tremendous amounts of dark money that special-interest groups and billionaire plutocrats such as George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer have been willing into invest in flipping the electoral map.

By contrast, the relatively low number of contested seats in the Senate has opened the possibility of what might—under different circumstances and with a different media—be considered a routing in Trump’s favor. Only five of the 21 elections included in the UCSB midterm data showed a gain in the upper chamber, as Trump is poised to achieve. All of those chief executives, with the exception of Ronald Reagan in 1982, were enjoying sky-high enthusiasm and popular support when they built on their leads.

If the GOP were to pick up the seats of struggling Democrat incumbents Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Claire McCaskill (Missouri)—and to clinch one of the other tightly contested battleground states that went for Trump two years ago (Indiana, Montana, West Virginia and Florida are the main candidates)—then a three-seat net gain would put Trump at a tie with John F. Kennedy in 1960 for the No. 2 spot in midterm Senate increases, behind only Franklin D. Roosevelt with nine seats in 1934.

As history shows, extraordinary circumstances can also impact the result. In addition to his nine-seat Senate pickup in the 1934 midterm, three years after the start of the Great Depression, Roosevelt gained nine House seats. Likewise, George W. Bush gained eight seats in the House and two in the Senate in 2002, the year after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Trump’s economic successes, and his focus on national defense and security issues, both play to his advantage. But even one of his potential liabilities—the likelihood of a partisan impeachment push—could wind up yielding favorable results.

BOOK: Bill Sought Monica After Hillary's Health Care Fail
Bill Clinton & Monica Lewinsky/IMAGE: YouTube

Former President Bill Clinton picked up seats in his second midterm, in 1998, amid the looming Starr investigation for perjury and obstruction of justice. However, his net gain of five also was far eclipsed by his loss of 52 seats during his prior 1994 midterm. That election had handed control of the House to Republicans.

The GOP maintained a strong enough majority to proceed with Clinton’s impeachment in December 1998, despite the prior month’s mild losses, but it did so at a heavy cost in its own public standing that ultimately proved unsuccessful in removing Clinton from office.

Trump currently faces a similar situation, with House Democrats threatening to use subpoena powers to stymie his legislative agenda and some saying that they would extend a harmful and unfounded investigation into Russia collusion, regardless of special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings.

Some Democrats also have hinted at launching an impeachment investigation into Justice Brett Kavanaugh, despite an extensive report by Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that found no credible evidence of sexual assault.

Trump has said that the defining issues of the election will be Kavanaugh and the caravan of thousands of migrants threatening to cross the border in coming weeks.

Democrats have pushed health care as the definitive election issue—but that has proven toxic in the past, with voters having punished Clinton in 1994 for an attempted health care overhaul and delivering a 63-seat loss to Barack Obama in 2010 following passage of the Affordable Care Act. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hopeful of repealing Obamacare should the GOP retain control of Congress, though Trump and other Republicans have said changes to ACA protections for pre-existing conditions are off the table.

Trump, Congressional Republicans Celebrate Tax Victory 1
Donald Trump/IMAGE: YouTube

While Trump’s numbers will likely shine by historical standards, barring any surprises, there remains the possibility—as he proved in 2016—that Trump could also surpass pollsters’ expectations due to oversampling and other surveying tricks that falsely inflated the Democratic “momentum” prior to Election Day.

The higher the number of people sampled, the more difficult such anomalies become, and Trafalgar Group, which often sampled considerably more people, showed leads for the Republican candidate in tightly contested Senate races in Nevada, Florida and Arizona, whereas in other surveys they remained toss-ups or projected a narrow Democrat win.

A huge victory for Trump and Republicans, of course, could pose just as many challenges as a loss, making desperate Democrats, who already have amped up the heated political rhetoric, turn even more vicious than a coalition government. Nancy Pelosi, poised to resume her role as speaker of the House, has promised collateral damage in that event. At a rally on Monday, Pelosi urged her liberal base “to be ready take a punch and throw a punch,” Breitbart reported.

Echoing Hillary Clinton, Pelosi said that the heated rhetoric on the Left would only cool once they were in power. When responding to a question on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert about lowering the temperature of political discourse, she said, ““Well, I think when we win, you will see evidence of that.”

But while considering the prospective outcomes at a recent campaign event, Trump was characteristically confident in his ability to manage. “My whole life, you know what I say? ‘Don’t worry about it, I’ll just figure it out,’” he said.

Dems, Media Rage After Trump Uses Cop-Killing Illegal in Attack Ad

‘I will break out soon, and I will kill more…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) In the closing week of the midterm election campaign, President Donald Trump left liberals seething over a simple ad, which he shared on Twitter.

The ad, running only 53 seconds, featured unrepentant, cop-killing illegal immigrant Luis Bracamontes in his own words with no voice-over.

“I will break out soon, and I will kill more,” Bracamontes said.

The Bracamontes case was one of several high-profile murders Trump has highlighted involving illegal immigrants, who disproportionately commit dangerous crimes. Entire organizations are dedicated simply to documenting the reported cases of violent assaults and rapes among illegals, aided and abetted by the liberal policies of sanctuary cities that defy federal rule of law in providing safe harbor.

Following the August murder of Mollie Tibbetts, Sen. Elizabeth Warren deflected on the scourge of non-citizen crime by saying Americans needed to refocus on “real problems,” like releasing into the population those whom immigration authorities had succeeded in detaining at the border.

Nonetheless, in a campaign season fraught with finger-pointing over the escalation of tension, fear-mongering, heated rhetoric and violence from every angle, Trump’s ad ignited yet another firestorm in the liberal media.

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo—brother of current New York governor and likely presidential contender Andrew—devoted a segment 9.5 times the length of the actual ad to discussing it with Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez.

The segment doubled as a campaign spot for Perez, who made sure to squeeze in talking points about the Left’s cause célèbre, the preservation of Obamacare entitlements, before circling back around to addressing the immigration issue.

Perez said it was typical of Trump’s divisiveness and distraction. “His dog whistle of all dog whistles is immigration. This has been Donald Trump’s playbook for so long—and you know what, when they go low, we go vote.”

The outrage followed a week in which Democrats attempted to paint Trump and his voter base as unhinged lunatics and relate them to two acts of terrorism pinned on right-wing extremists, all while many prominent party leaders on the Left egged on violence and promised further instances of incivility and collateral damage.

Two days earlier, in a discussion with Cuomo, fellow CNN anchor Don Lemon said, “We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.”

Perez seemed to take it a step farther, even blaming Trump for the crimes committed by illegal immigrants, which he suggested were part and parcel with the previous week’s headlines.

“When you create a climate—as this president has created—that invites violent acts, you should never be surprised when you have violent acts.”

Perez bragged about having been involved with creating immigration reform under President Barack Obama, whose divisive rhetoric led to race riots and police killings in cities like Ferguson, Mo.; Baltimore, Md.; Baton Rouge, La.; and Dallas, Texas—along with perennial riots in places like Berkeley and Oakland, Calif.

Noting that Republicans had wrested control of all branches of government from the Obama-era Democrats in 2016, Perez said any immigration problems were the GOP’s fault. “They own any failure in these policies right now.”

However, it was 2014, on Obama’s watch, when Bracamontes killed two Sacramento, Calif. sheriff’s deputies in cold blood, shooting Deputy Danny Oliver in the head and driving over his body in an attempt to flee, and later killing Detective Michael Davis after a rampage that included carjacking and shooting an innocent bystander five times—three in the face.

Ironically, after trying to pin immigration problems on Trump, Perez tried to downplay the current immigration threat by pointing out that under Trump’s watch, in fiscal year 2016-17, illegal border crossings had dropped to their lowest level since the 1970s.

Following Cuomo’s show, Lemon also weighed in on his program, calling the ad a “blatantly racist appeal … that shows you just how willing [Trump] is to use lies and scare tactics to terrify his base.”

Other anti-Trumpists also attacked it, with departing Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake calling it a “new low in campaigning” and Clinton-era Treasury Secretary Robert Reich saying “This may be the most desperate and vile ad since Willie Horton.”

Many in the media echo chamber picked up on the Horton comparison, referencing the attack ad used by then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in 1988 to portray opponent Michael Dukakis as being soft on crime.

Four years later, in Bush’s losing campaign to Bill Clinton, future First Lady Hillary Clinton, referred to violent black criminals as “super predators,” drawing criticism from some during her own presidential run.