Skip to comments.When Hillary’s Venting Can Be Dangerous
Posted on 10/03/2017 6:29:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
Perhaps no real harm can come from Hillary Clinton monetizing her venting about how the FBI director, Russia, Bernie Sanders and misogyny apparently conspired to deny her destined ascension to the presidency.
But, its worth recalling that after the third presidential debate last year when then Republican candidate Donald Trump indicated he might not accept the election outcome, his Democratic opponent indignantly called that a direct threat to our democracy.
When touting her book, What Happened, in an NPR interview, Clinton went a step further than venting.
When asked, Would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now? Clinton responded, No. I wouldnt rule it out.
During her NPR interview, Clinton went on to say, I just don't think we have a mechanism [to challenge the outcome]. You know, the Kenya election was just overturned, indicating America should follow suit, but there is no way to do it.
Essentially adding the Constitution to her list of co-conspirators, she managed to mention to host Terry Gross, Now, I do believe we should abolish the Electoral College.
To hint at challenging an outcome nearly a year after election night would be unprecedented. But whatever she might or might not do, she hasnt talked about what her campaign surrogates did after the election and before Inauguration Day to prevent President Donald Trump from taking the office he was constitutionally elected to. My book, The Plot to Stop Trump: The Story of the Failed Effort to Overturn an Election, explains how Clintons campaign workers pushed ridiculous measures behind the scenes, from recounts to pushing an Electoral College coup. It also describes how she kept her fingerprints off.
Today Clintons goal at least seems to be simply to delegitimize the 2016 election in the mind of the public. But, immediately after the election, the goal was to prevent a duly-elected president from taking office. So, however harmless sore-loser venting is, attempting to overturn an election isnt.
First came recounts in three states where Trump had toppled the blue wall. Clintons legal team came on board the effort by Green party candidate Jill Stein to count the votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Its funny that no one demanded a recount in New Hampshire or Minnesota, states Clinton won a very thin margin.
The 2016 Democratic nominee didnt say a word, but Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias issued an announcement that said: Now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well.
Elias cast it as being along for the ride, but the recount effort was bankrolled primarily by Clinton supporters.
As it turns out, Stein got her recount in Wisconsin. The result: Trump gained 131 more votes.
Courts denied that the Green party candidate had a grievance in Pennsylvania or Michigan, so no recount there. However, a recanvassing of one of the Pennsylvanias largest counties, Allegheny County, found no changes.
Politico later found that top Clinton campaign aides Jake Sullivan, a chief foreign policy adviser and Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for the campaign, were in contact with the Hamilton Electorsthe most prominent of a handful of groups trying to push an Electoral College coup.
It was named for founding father Alexander Hamilton, who, in addition to being a pop culture phenomenon because of the Broadway musical, also had said the Electoral College existed to ensure, the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Its funny that many of the same folks on the left who criticized the Electoral College for being undemocratic were now willing to turn to it to thwart an election result and even potentially install someone who didnt run for president to keep Trump out.
The goal of the Hamilton Electors and other groups was to shift 37 Republican electors to vote for someone other than Trump. Thats the number needed to pull Trump below 270 electoral voteswhich would send the election to the House of Representatives.
Its tough to see what the Clinton surrogates endgame was? There was an off chance enough House Republicans didnt want Trump to be president but they certainly wouldnt vote for Hillary Clinton president.
Its a reason the Clinton campaign didnt go all in with challenging the outcome on any front, but it seems highly doubtful campaign staff leaped into these efforts against the wishes of the boss.
Hillaryor enough people around heraccepted that she had no legal leg to stand on in challenging the outcome. Now, shes reduced to saying if only America were more like Kenya.
While her memoir makes no pretense about being a mature loser, Americans shouldnt forget what her campaign sought to pull off after the election, particularly when shes leaving open the option to challenge its legitimacy now.
IOW, I want to change it to where I did win even though that is not the reality of it.
Hills, you were NEVER going to be President. You have been a useful idiot to Satan and he’s just having a little fun with you.
definitely when standing behind her
oh the irony . . .
Steady Hilda steady....or you’ll get the potato sack toss by some gorilla that comes out of the shadows.
In spite of the best efforts by the b*tch and her cronies to steal the election, the witch lost. Thank God!
Make sure the smoking lamp is out when she vents from the anus.
All of Clintoon’s flatulence is destroying the ozone layer.
I thank God every day this pathetic wench is not our President
Yep I thank God too.
Off topic, but I wonder about this “smartest woman in the world” and her intellect and her common sense. Yesterday, in reacting to the Las Vegas massacre, she wondered how much worse it would have been if the perp had a silencer.
Rather than any sympathy for victims, she immediately attacks the NRA, and speculates, what if the dude had silencers, imagine how much worse it could have been. What kind of mindset expresses such inane thoughts?
In 2016 she was rejected by all voters.
Maybe someday she'll be a candidate in an election where every person in the entire world has an opportunity to vote against her wretched @ss.
Not any more than Charlie Manson’s...
And in 2020 she will even be rejected by the dead.
Imagine being an American colonist in 1776!
All around you are thousands of other colonists who look to the future, citing Creator-endowed individual liberty for every person under a form of self-government based on "Natural law," or, "the laws of Nature."
Yet, your neighbor (who likes to be the center of attention and self-described "defender" of special groups she selects as "worthy" of rights), declares she knows what is best for everybody and that she does not recognize the votes of those "deplorable" persons who reject her form of "Progressive" power over people (for their own good, you know).
As colonists, you and your 18th Century friends whose ancestors have braved an ocean and a wilderness in order to raise their families in freedom from oppressive government, write a Declaration of Independence from that government's oppression, and resolve to live like free people who can chart their own future, under God's Providence, and receive "the Blessings of Liberty."
Yet, there stands that know-it-all neighbor, screaming and pointing to herself, shouting, "What Happened?"--as she watches real progress take place among those neighbors she has called "deplorable" and "unredeemable."
She looks pretty silly and shallow, don't you think?
No one could have said it any better than you.
No sane person listens to her and her kind only the crazy ones do.
Thanks! Just fed up with her and her backward-looking 70-year-old mind!! Enough, already!!!