Google can and will swing millions of votes by the way it modifies its searches and prompts releases to Google customers.

The home run statement of Dr. Epstein, who admitted he was a Democrat, is that the rock bottom lowest effect of Google in a US election is 2.5 million votes if it uses its available tools to influence users in voter choices, with the upper effect in a range of more than 10 million votes.

Then it got very interesting as Senator Cruz questioned a Google rep on the company’s assertion that it is fair and impartial and would not attempt to influence political activities. Of course, that is a joke; everybody knows it is a joke and that Google execs are hair-on-fire leftists who would never consider voting for a Republican, and that’s just the beginning.

When confronted with Project Veritas tapes of Google exec commitment to the Democrat party success and willingness to organize an effort to make sure Trump was not re-elected, the Google representative was just short of speechless, claiming the position she took in the beginning of the examination, that she represented a company that was not in the business of influencing and manipulating the public.

Covering up the $1.3 billion payoff to Iran

This window into the shenanigans the administration is using to implement its deal isn’t just about whether the latest move is legal. No one has yet said it broke the law.

One of the principles of newspapering, though, is that the scandal is often not about what’s illegal but what’s legal. How can the administration tap the taxpayers for $1.3 billion without the say-so of Congress?

This is one of the most basic prohibitions in the Constitution. “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” is the way the parchment puts it.

The government maintains the judgment fund is legit. It calls it an “indefinite, permanent appropriation.” The idea is that Congress didn’t want to be bothered with having to pass a law for every nickel-and-dime settlement.

Could it have intended to authorize a blank check to send $1.3 billion to a regime that calls us the Great Satan and threatens to wipe Israel off the map? What Congress in its right mind would do such a thing?

Hillary Clinton brags about starting Media Matters

Rush just played this audio clip on his show. It’s a clip from back in August, of Sen. Hillary Clinton addressing the YearlyKooks, I mean Kos, convention. In it, she brags about starting and supporting Media Matters for America.

Doesn’t that make them an adjuct part of her campaign for the presidency? What does McCain-Feingold have to say about this arrangement? And has Norman Hsu’s Ponzi scheme money funded any part of Media Matters? These are the questions that the MSM that regurgitates Media Matters press release attacks as if they’re actual news will not ask and doesn’t want answered.

Windfall: Obama Raises $181 Million, Only Around 2% of Donations Reportable

Via Breitbart

The average of $53 from small donors is particularly noteworthy. Contributions under $200 don't have to be disclosed, but the campaign still has to keep track of the donor's name, in case subsequent donations push their contribution over the reporting threshold.

For contributions under $50, however, the campaign doesn't even have to keep track of the donor's name. It is effectively considered a "petty cash" donation. A person could theoretically make 10 $49 donations and never be reported, even though their total contributions are above the FEC's reporting threshold.

With an average donation of $53 from small donors, Obama has A LOT of donors who will never be disclosed and whose names aren't even known to the campaign. Tens of millions of dollars worth.

You have to ask: Was Obama rattled by developing donor scandal story?

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

The Obama campaign has received hundreds of millions in small dollar donations, many via credit card donations through their website. On Thursday, the campaign announced a record September donor haul of $150 million.

Obama wasn’t rattled by fears that there would be criminal investigation of massive campaign finance law violations. After all, his gangster buddy Holder isn’t going to look into this. But if Romney’s smart his campaign will investigate and come up with evidence of foreign donations from Middle East Arabs who think Obama’s fine with the destruction of Israel.

 

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds reminds us that the Obama campaigh pulled off the same stunt in 2008 and asks: Remember those dubious unverified credit card donations from 2008? Is this donation-smurfing?