Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary Won’t Rule Out Questioning Legitimacy of 2016 Election

Hillary Won’t Rule Out Questioning Legitimacy of 2016 Election

Still blames Comey, too.

Failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appeared on NPR’s Fresh Air to plug her memoir What Happened. She told host Terry Gross that would not rule out questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election if more proof comes out that Russia did meddle in the election.

Former FBI James Comey also comes up in the conversation and yes, Hillary pointed the finger at him…again.

Legitimate Election?

From NPR:

I want to get back to the question, 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?

No. I would not. I would say —

You’re not going to rule it out.

No, I wouldn’t rule it out.

So what are the means, like, this is totally unprecedented in every way —

It is.

Gross asked Hillary about “the means to challenge it” and she admitted that she doesn’t “believe there are.” Earlier she told Gross that she doesn’t “know if there’s any legal constitutional way to do it.” She basically puts the pressure on President Donald Trump to do something:

Let me just put it this way, if I had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college and in my first day as president the intelligence community came to me and said, “The Russians influenced the election,” I would’ve never stood for it. Even though it might’ve advantaged me, I would’ve said, “We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.” I would’ve set up an independent commission with subpoena power and everything else.

In June, Julia Azari wrote at FiveThirtyEight that the Constitution doesn’t say what will happen if the 2016 election is determined to be a fraud. Azari points out that “the Constitution itself focuses more on ensuring stability than on administering elections.” She explains:

The framers gave the Electoral College broad discretion to resolve disputes as it saw fit: The text of the Constitution pretty much says an election is legitimate when the Electoral College says it is. It doesn’t lay out a process for do-overs. Occasionally, courts have ordered new elections for offices other than the presidency after a proven case of fraud or error. (Or gerrymandering — a court in North Carolina ordered new state legislative elections, though this order has been put on hold.) And a Senate election was once redone in New Hampshire because it was too close to determine even with multiple recounts.

But whether this kind of re-do is allowed for presidential elections is a more complicated matter. Some legal scholars maintain that the language in Article II of the Constitution prevents holding a presidential election again, thus putting it beyond the power of the courts to order a re-vote, as they have occasionally done for other offices. Others suggest that there is legal precedent for a presidential re-vote if there were flaws in the process. One instance in which this question arose was the “butterfly ballot” from the 2000 election, which may have caused some voters to choose Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore in Palm Beach County, Florida.2

Comey…Again

Hillary reiterated her position to Gross that Comey’s comments only days before the election moved the dial in Trump’s direction. From NPR:

Where I part company with him — and think he violated every rule in the book as a FBI director — was what he did on Oct. 28, because what he did then was to send a letter acting like he was reopening an investigation that had been closed to Congress, knowing it would be immediately leaked. And later on when asked, Well weren’t you also conducting an investigation into the Trump campaign and their connections with Russia? Yes. Well, why didn’t you tell the American people that? Because it was too close to the election.

I think the American people deserve to know there was an FBI investigation [into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia] that had started in early 2016 — Americans never knew that. And yet my emails, which he re-injected into the campaign at the very end, he could’ve handled — OK suppose he legitimately thought, again, from pressure, because remember Rudy Giuliani two days before the 28th said, “Something big is gonna happen.” He [Comey] could’ve said, I’m going to look at this. I would’ve said, Go ahead, look at it. I have nothing to hide. It’s the same stuff you’ve already seen. But no, he injected himself, but he never said a word about the Russia investigation.

The Washington Post published an article today by Professor Costas Panagopoulos at Northeastern University and Associate Professor Aaron Weinschenk at University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, who explained that in a paper they recently published, the “polling data from the last four months of the campaign” showed no evidence that Comey’s letter had a major affect:

We arrive at this conclusion through an analysis of Clinton and Trump’s standings in national polls from July 1 through the day before the November election. We use data from Pollster’s 2016 General Election poll chart. Specifically, our measure is Clinton’s share of the two candidates’ support.

We use time-series analysis to trace changes in the polls. Our statistical model accounts for economic conditions and presidential approval, which political scientists call campaign “fundamentals” because they are systematically associated with support for the incumbent party. We also include variables to capture the effects of the party conventions, the three presidential debates, as well as the volume of each candidate’s media coverage. (Details of the analysis appear in the paper.)

The professors noted that Comey’s led to a slight shift in Clinton’s numbers, but not enough to state that it cost her votes. They also couldn’t find evidence that the Access Hollywood video of Trump harmed him.

Overall, their paper concluded that President Barack Obama’s approval numbers had more of an affect on Hillary’s numbers, along with the approval numbers for the Democrat National Convention and the first presidential debate.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Jedediah Bila shocked audiences when she departed “The View” on Monday — and according to a source, this sudden departure may have something to do with Hillary Clinton.

“There was a lot of staff who were upset about how that interview was handled,” says the source, speculating that “The View” wants the former secretary of state to appear on the show multiple times. “They had a lot to say to Jedediah about calming things down.”

do we get to question the validity of the 2008 election? after all, I think the science is settled — he was born in Kenya.

    C. Lashown in reply to sdharms. | September 18, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    Forget Science! The winner of the 2008 election would gladly tell us the truth of his origins, along with all the specific individual peripherals, when the right questions were asked in the right way! There has never been any need for ‘science’ during the past 2,000 years – why clutter up the landscape with over self-important theorists?

    Milhouse in reply to sdharms. | September 19, 2017 at 1:21 am

    WTH are you talking about?

I hope that any attempt through the courts to do so would be thrown out. After all, how could it be accurately determined that at no time was there no tampering with any of the votes, especially after 10 months?

    The ninth circus would be happy to order a new election if Republicans and rascally Russians could be blamed for anything. Their rationale for doing so is clearly written right there in the invisible ink on the emanating penumbras.

    Boris Badenov and Natasha Nogoodnick are said to be in witness protection after revealing the vast Russian interference.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to gospace. | September 18, 2017 at 5:50 pm

      Maybe, this was a calculated comment by her in an attempt to stimulate more book sales and generate more funds for the new pac that has only brought in funds and nothing else.

Hillary is the Dem fool that will keep on giving almost like an actress who was denied an Oscar but rushes on stage to grab one anyway…and then makes an acceptance speech!

Yawn. She’s just chumming the waters where the Dem base swims, and fundraising while she does it.

Let me just put it this way, if I had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college and in my first day as president the intelligence community came to me and said, “The Russians influenced the election,” I would’ve never stood for it. Even though it might’ve advantaged me, I would’ve said, “We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.” I would’ve set up an independent commission with subpoena power and everything else.

Perhaps Hillary is trying out for a new career in stand-up comedy.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to MadisonS. | September 18, 2017 at 4:50 pm

    Oh come now, you saw how genuine and sincere that she was with regard to the Benghazi hearings and the email investigations. Truth is her middle name, in all capital letters. Heck, it is well known that most people call her Honest Hillary, and that only the kooky ones call her Harridan Hillary.

    C. Lashown in reply to MadisonS. | September 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm

    Surely, our dear bullet dodger is a woman of integrity, with a character that loves veracity. It’s widely known that Miss Hillary cannot continence personal disloyalty in other, and therefore remains loyal to the goals set before her. POWER AT ANY PRICE, ANY SACRIFICE IS WORTH THE COST.

    The one thing good about this is that she cannot always be such a thorn in this country’s side. Sooner or later she’ll lay down the husk and die, then just her memory will be around to haunt the left. Speaking of which… I wonder how America’s 2nd worse president is doing (Jimmah Carter).

    I only noticed she didn’t say anything about resigning the office, only that she’d have an investigation into it.

    hildabeast is of course lying as usual, or else she’d have called for an investigation into the democrat party for it’s scamming old bernie.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MadisonS. | September 19, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    Someone tell Hillary that she actually lost the “popular’ vote also.

    Dead people and illegal aliens’ votes don’t count – even though the evil, corrupt Democrats do count them…..

Careful Hillary, remember there is a Blue Ribbon panel investigating voter fraud.

The obama/GOPe legacy: America’s corrupt two-tier justice system marches on.

When the HELL is AG Sessions going to indict this criminal?

OleDirtyBarrister | September 18, 2017 at 4:46 pm

What difference does it make now?

Yes, I am sure if the she learned by empirical evidence that the Rooskies influenced a victory for her she would investigate it thoroughly and call for a new election. Just like she would if she learned that Bob Creamer and other Dem operatives were bussing voters across state lines to skew elections. I mean, heck, with the integrity on display during the Benghazi scandal and the earnestness exhibited in investigating that and the email scandal, who could doubt the veracity of her statement insisting that she is for the truth.

“Let me just put it this way, if I had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college and in my first day as president the intelligence community came to me and said, ‘The Russians influenced the election,’ I would’ve never stood for it. Even though it might’ve advantaged me, I would’ve said, ‘We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.’ I would’ve set up an independent commission with subpoena power and everything else.”

Oh bull$#!+. Hillary, such a thought never would have entered your mind. You know that’s a bald-faced lie, and so does everyone else.

Go change your Depends – you’re full of it.

Remember when this hypocrite blasted Trump for suggesting the same thing? When was that? Couple centuries ago? Oh man, no way, I am so stupid. It was last year. Really seems like it was 1816 when she said that. I just plumb forgot. And she’s been lambasting those election results every single day since last Nov. I thought doing such a thing was dangerous to our democracy? OH WAIT! Sorry. Forgot again. She’s a Democrat. Sorry. All standards are thrown out of all windows. It’s so hard keeping up with all these special rules for the special people.

Remember when the media collectively stumbled for their fainting couches when Trump wouldn’t say he’d accept the results of the election because he’d have to see if it was fair?

If it weren’t for double standards liberals would have no standards at all.

Susan Rice confirms trump Tower wiretapped

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDJDoLjGMKs

Why would putin waste time getting Trump elected when they already owned hillary?

This is one sick woman: she really thinks she’s got something going here.

Maybe she’ll drop dead from the stress, so we can go on to mock her memory and the fake eulogies of her by the left.

Trump’s first broken promise was not locking her uo.

I have an English Bulldog named Lola and she can get hold of something and it is impossible to break her bite on it. But after seeing this old dog not let go of this meme, I’m starting to believe that Lola is only the second best bulldog in the country!

    C. Lashown in reply to inspectorudy. | September 18, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    The Clinton Clan is like the political kudzu of American politics, strangling everything they encounter with their own brand of obstinate corruption.

Hillary’s not the only one slinging the BS. Fortunately it’s pretty weak stuff, and won’t stick.

Others suggest that there is legal precedent for a presidential re-vote if there were flaws in the process. One instance in which this question arose was the “butterfly ballot” from the 2000 election, which may have caused some voters to choose Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Utterly irrelevant, since there was no re-vote in 2000, no matter who was or wasn’t confused.

There was a major case of ballot confusion in at least one southern state in the Tilden/Hayes (1876) election, which resulted in a considerable number of Dem votes being thrown out by several states’ electoral commissions. However that entire election was very messy, for a whole passel of reasons. There’s little danger of the Dems trying to cite it as precedent, both because it’s irrelevant—all the action took place before the 1876 Electoral College votes were counted, not after—and because most of the excitement was caused by those rascally postwar Dems trying to suppress freedmen’s votes with violent thuggery rather reminiscent of today’s BLM, the Panthers, and “antifa”. I’m sure modern Dems would prefer that America’s voters forget all about it.

    The butterfly ballot in Florida 2000 is a non-starter. It was designed by democrats. And it was printed in the Florida newspapers two months before the election for everyone to review.

      tom swift in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2017 at 10:35 pm

      Some of the ballots in 1876 had little pictures of Lincoln on them, positioned to mislead illiterate voters into believing that they were voting for a Republican candidate when they were not. Illiteracy was far move common among the freedmen than the general population, as in some states it was forbidden by law to teach slaves to read (before the war, of course—nine years later many had doubtless learned).

Didn’t Hillary say that Trumps refusal to promise to respect the election results was a threat to our democracy?

I fully expect a headline like …

Trump to concede Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to Hillary … or is he

… which is denied be the White House

Subotai Bahadur | September 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm

Someone should [no one will, I know] ask Leftists if the same precedent of not accepting the election of a president will hold if a Leftist is ever elected.

Hillary calls a mulligan.

But we won on third-down conversions.

I’m so tired of this nonsense. Dear Hillary you didn’t win the popular vote because the popular vote wasn’t in play. Your continued harping on this point only reveals you to be an idiot.

If the popular vote mattered Donald Trump would have campaign in California. Democrats in Texas would have voted. Republicans in States like California and Maryland would have voted. And the vote totals would be completely different than what they are today.

You did not win the popular vote. Stop repeating this nonsense. There’s being a sore loser and there’s being an idiot try not to be both.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Fen. | September 19, 2017 at 2:33 pm

    BRAVO!

    RE: ” Dear Hillary you didn’t win the popular vote….”

    Keep telling the truth!

Why is wasting her time worrying about losing the job of POTUS when the position of intergalactic emperor of the universe is still open.

Just because she would have to oppose our reptilian overlords should be of no concern.

The question remains; what is the purpose of this book, this 512-page tour of Hillary’s whine cellar?

Right now, Hillary has two goals.

First, to maintain her position as the key corruptocrat in Washington. But to do that, she has to have influence to sell, or at least a realistic chance of having influence again in the foreseeable future. And I’m sure she does still have influence to sell; the State Department in particular is probably still filled with her minions, some of them doubtless still on her under-the-table payroll. But she’s not trying to convince them that she’s the Queen of Pay-to-Play; they’re her employees, but she needs customers.

In any event, it’s not at all clear how this Simon & Schuster pity party can help her in this department.

Second, she has to get the Democrats thinking that she’s not washed up for good. It’s an uphill battle. For one thing, the modern Democrats don’t run their failed Presidential candidates a second time. True, they ran William Jennings Bryan three times between 1896 and 1908, but he was the last one; after that, Dem presidential wannabes win, or they’re out for good. It might take some persuading to get them to change.

But the Democrats are in turmoil. They have no idea which way to jump—do they suck up to the socialists, or to the racists? Or split the difference and hope the SJWs can carry them over the finish line? Hillary may believe she offers an alternative; business as usual. Of course “business as usual” means unending corruption, but at least Hillary has no strong political beliefs; she doesn’t care which way the country drifts, as long as she’s the First Woman President and ends up even more filthy rich than she is now.

To be a plausible candidate she has to get the Dem higher-ups thinking that she almost managed to clinch it this time; it it hadn’t been for the Russians, or Comey, or women, or white men, or the weather, or those meddlesome kids, she’d be President and the Dems could rape and pillage at will. So the longer the list of lame excuses, the better. If any one of them could make the difference between defeat and victory, then the more reasons, and the sillier, the better. And that’s why she’ll keep dishing out these absurd whoppers, like Even though it might’ve advantaged me, I would’ve said, “We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.” These statements are not meant to convince rational human beings; they’re meant to keep her name in the hat.

She also has to stay in the limelight for the next few years. Expect loads of TV appearances and attacks on anything Republican, the more outrageous and outré the better. She’s not trying to win any debates, she’s trying to stay in the news.

ugottabekiddinme | September 19, 2017 at 12:11 am

“For one thing, the modern Democrats don’t run their failed Presidential candidates a second time. True, they ran William Jennings Bryan three times between 1896 and 1908, but he was the last one”

Adlai Stevenson was nominated the Dem candidate in both 1952 and 1956. Still, that is 60 years and 14 presidential elections ago.

Did you mean they don’t run them a third time?

    Did you mean they don’t run them a third time?

    Nope, I missed him clean, thanks. Lost to Eisenhower both times. His grampy, Adlai Stevenson I, lost as Bryan’s Veep, too, and I still managed to miss him.

What is this Azari woman blathering about? The constitution doesn’t give a **** what happened on November 8th. As far as the constitution is concerned the results, legitimate or otherwise, are irrelevant, so no fraud in it matters. The presidential election was held on December 19th, and nobody is alleging any fraud happened there. So how could one even contemplate a revote? Plus, any revote would presumably be of the same electors as the first time, so the Republican candidate would be almost sure to win.

To be fair, Al Gore was infinitely worse.

Still trying to figure out how Russia putting up news sites that promote Russia’s agenda is different from our national media putting up news sites that promote the media narrative?

theduchessofkitty | September 19, 2017 at 8:50 am

“My Preciousssss…”

Hitlary has too much time on her hands. She’s is sounding paranoid and crazy and the commie media is feeding the beast, basically using her lunacy as their weapon against Trump.

Why is she content with being a lard ass with thunder thighs beyond comparison? Does that say something about her soul?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend