Not accepting reality…
There are plenty of Democrats who believe to this day that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election. Just as many if not more believe that Republicans stole a seat on the Supreme Court from Merrick Garland.
This week at a convention in Chicago, Jesse Jackson said that the 2016 election was stolen from Hillary.
Cameron Cawthorne reports at the Washington Free Beacon:
Jesse Jackson: The White House Was ‘Stolen’ From Hillary Clinton
Civil Rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. attended the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition convention in Chicago on Thursday, where he claimed President Donald Trump stole the election.
Jackson was introducing the Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez when he made the accusation against Trump.
“To have a head of our party who is sensitive to the plight of working people is the order of this day,” Jackson told the crowd. “Don’t forget when you lose, you tend to amplify ‘would’ve, could’ve, should’ve.’ When you win you cover up your sins.”
“We worked last year. We won the election. It was stolen,” Jackson concluded.
Here’s the video:
This type pf thinking isn’t confined to the fringe. Just two weeks ago, FiveThirtyEight, a highly respected source of political analysis, chose to speculate on the topic.
Julia Azari writes:
What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
For all the headlines about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, no hard evidence has come to light, at least publicly, showing that President Trump or his team were involved. But suppose that such evidence did come to light — what would happen if it became clear that Trump or his advisers colluded with the Russians?1 This isn’t the only type of wrongdoing the investigations could uncover, but it’s among the most serious because it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2016 result. So, is there a process for dealing with a finding that in essence invalidates an election?
When it comes to presidential elections, the answer is: not really. The laws and processes around national elections have grown up in a piecemeal fashion over time, with state and local laws governing the administration of presidential elections. And the Constitution itself focuses more on ensuring stability than on administering elections. As a result, there aren’t clear procedures for how to handle questions of legitimacy after the fact — especially when those questions involve the presidency.
The continual challenge to the legitimacy of the election serves two purposes for Democrats. First, it’s easier to say the election was stolen from them than to admit they lost. Second, it justifies their obstruction of Trump’s agenda.
Unfortunately, it’s terrible for the country. Remember that the next time you see a liberal activist accusing a Republican of putting party before country.
Follow Mike on Twitter @MikeLaChance33
Featured image via YouTube.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.