I am writing this letter in response to a column by Karen Rubin in the July 7 issue of the Roslyn Times.
Karen Rubin, in this, and every column she authors, espouses the usual progressive claptrap one can expect from a political hack.
Why would I say that?
She begins by calling Trump’s Presidential Advisory Committee on Election Integrity “Orwellian.”
Nice use of language but there is nothing Orwellian about it. It is a straightforward assault on the Democratic Party’s ruthless and unprincipled strategy to win elections.
She proceeds to call the effort “data mining.”
To begin with, these are public records. The request for data is well founded.
The request for addresses is to see if people are voting in two or more places. The request for a social security number request is to see if people are using deceased people’s ssn to vote in their stead.
Military people vote on their bases during active duty, so there should not be anyone voting in their name at the same time in their hometown.
Felons are not legally permitted to vote, so it is appropriate to see if someone has a felony conviction.
The request to see if the voter is registered in more than one state is to prevent double voting with an absentee ballot or having someone else cast a second ballot.
So what is the problem?
In one of the dumbest remarks I have ever seen published in the Roslyn Times, Ms. Rubin says “Unless they voted twice or a dead person sent in an absentee ballot, these votes did not impact the “integrity” of the election.”
That is exactly the point of the supposed “Orwellian” investigation.
How do we know if there was dishonest voting unless we investigate it?
As an aside, she contends that the real election integrity investigation should be in regards to the collusion of Trump and Russia.
This is to infer that Trump or his staff colluded with the Russians to skew the vote. Will this lie ever die?
Just today, in the July 9 editorial in the Sunday New York Times, they admitted than no change in the election outcome was due to Russian interference.
James Klapper, Senator Diane Feinstein, Comey, and others said that they could not find any Russian link.
Meetings are not collusion.
Do you want to hear about what is more likely collusion? I refer to one of Joan Swirsky’s columns.
John Podesta was a director and received 75,000 shares from a Kremlin-financed company, Joule Unlimited. Was that colluding?
Podesta’s brother was a lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank of Russia and received 24 million dollars in fees. Was that colluding?
Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow from a firm with ties to Russian intelligence. It went into the Clinton Foundation. Was that colluding?
Did Mrs. Clinton’s campaign meet several times with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak leading up to the election?
Was that colluding?
By the way, who sold 20 percent of our uranium stockpile to the Russians when she was secretary of state? Was that colluding?
Also, didn’t Barack Obama and John Brennan team up with British and Estonian spies to sabotage Trump’s candidacy.
This was much worse than Watergate, since Nixon never ordered the burglary; he only found out about it later and tried to cover it up.
This was definitely colluding.
Not to beat a dead horse, but if there was collusion, why are there no leaks proving it after nine months of accusations.
There have been dozens upon dozens of leaks from our intelligence agencies since Trump was elected.
There have been so many that other intelligence agencies are reluctant to share information with us.
So where are the “smoking gun” leaks?
Maybe there are no leaks because there is no truth to the matter.
In addition, why doesn’t the DNC show their servers to the FBI to prove the Russian collusion?
One reason might be because there is no proof of Russian manipulation.
A second reason, and probably the real reason they do not show their servers, is because of Loretta Lynch’s collusion with the DNC to protect Hillary’s candidacy. Sounds like obstruction of justice to me.
In addition, maybe their servers would show how the DNC schemed to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders.
There is a lawsuit against the DNC by Sanders’ supporters who are trying to get those servers.
Due to space constraints, I will continue this letter in the next edition.
I will prove that Hillary’s 3 million vote popular vote advantage was as fraudulent as she is.
I will also provide documentation and websites for you to see for yourself.
Dr. Wayne Roth