Flashback 2016: Democrats Pressured Trump Electors to Flip to Hillary
“They aggressively targeted & harassed me with the goal of me committing to being 1 of the 37 ‘Faithless Electors’… […] My personal info was posted and I received tens of thousands of letters to my mailbox, emails, and calls/texts at all hours of the night for weeks.”
In light of the DC indictment and Georgia Indictment against former President Donald Trump, which centers around allegations of a so-called alternative electors scheme, as well as the Michigan case where their Attorney General filed felony charges against 16 alleged pro-Trump “fake electors,” it’s worth revisiting the 2016 presidential election and the media-approved attempts by Democrats all the way up to high-ranking members of Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign to get 37 electors to switch their votes.
CNN was among the numerous “news” outlets lending credence to the plan to stop Trump from being sworn in:
CNN in 2016
– America needs 37 "faithless electors” from states Trump won to do this in order to drop him below the 270 threshold and block him from automatically winning the White House. The election would be determined by the House of Representatives, which has a… pic.twitter.com/BsLpyYublG
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) August 17, 2023
So was CBS News, which reported the below story without any noticeable concern about the state of “our democracy” (as Hillary has often put it):
Trump may lose the presidency if about 47 "faithless electors" vote, but historically these electors have been few. pic.twitter.com/lIRheL4oTP
— CBS News (@CBSNews) December 19, 2016
Endorsements of the proposed 2016 “faithless electors” switch included elected Democrats like Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.):
✊ https://t.co/Ax0hvmmfPK pic.twitter.com/HrCzIgWFhl
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) August 18, 2023
Leading Democrat lawyers such as Laurence Tribe and Lisa Bloom offered their legal support:
Christian Ziegler, who is chairman of the Florida GOP, relates what he says happened to him in 2016, which matches up with contemporary reports of what was said to be happening to electors after the 2016 election:
I was one of Trump’s Electors in 2016.
They aggressively targeted & harassed me with the goal of me committing to being 1 of the 37 ‘Faithless Electors’ that the Democrats needed to change the results of the November election.
My personal info was posted and I received tens of thousands of letters to my mailbox, emails, and calls/texts at all hours of the night for weeks.
Didn’t work, but they absolutely tried.
I was one of Trump's Electors in 2016.
They aggressively targeted & harassed me with the goal of me committing to being 1 of the 37 'Faithless Electors' that the Democrats needed to change the results of the November election.
My personal info was posted and I received tens of… https://t.co/lnhXtkRoFB
— Christian Ziegler 🇺🇸 (@ChrisMZiegler) August 17, 2023
Others also shared their stories of what they alleged happened to some electors in 2016:
I know a few GOP electors who were harassed in red states in 2016. They were targeted and it was demanded they change their votes. One told me his mailbox could not take any more letters at several times.
The feds did nothing about it.
— Jim Stinson (@jimstinson) August 18, 2023
The most troubling of all, as The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway has extensively documented, was the Clinton campaign’s coordination and participation in what essentially was a coup attempt against Trump, starting with the Russia collusion hoax nonsense and culminating with the faithless electors plan:
In fact, within hours she instructed her team to lean into the Russia collusion hoax she bought and paid for. She tried to force electors to hear her disinfo operation prior to their vote. And Dem intel officers' leak and sabotage campaign was in high operation in Dec. and Jan. https://t.co/40TBkQJYm1
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 6, 2022
At the time, the Wall Street Journal took a hammer to nail in their assessment of what Clinton and her fellow Democrats were trying to do:
Why wasn’t Hillary prosecuted for her attempted 2016 Electoral College Coup? Reminder that Hillary Clinton & her 2016 campaign not only orchestrated the phony Steele Dossier/“Russian collusion” hoax, they sought to use that hoax, etc., to have electors invalidate the results… pic.twitter.com/HUNOmsq8TU
— Andrew Bostom, MD, MS (@andrewbostom) August 15, 2023
From the piece:
But now that Mrs. Clinton has lost, her campaign is claiming the election really was rigged, albeit for Mr. Trump by Russian meddling, and it wants the Electoral College to stage what amounts to a coup.
That’s the only way to interpret the extraordinary statement Monday by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta endorsing a special intelligence briefing for electors a week before they cast their ballots for President on Dec. 19. He released the statement hours after 10 members of the Electoral College sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seeking information on foreign interference in the election to judge if Mr. Trump “is fit to serve.” One of those electors is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s daughter.
“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security. Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed,” Mr. Podesta said. “We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”
Between all that, the endless “investigations” and related attempts from Democrats at having Trump removed from office, and now the four indictments against a potential Biden opponent that have come in the middle of a presidential campaign season, there’s little wonder that so many believe as Trump does that the system is “rigged.”
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Surely this show of hypocrisy will stop leftist liars once and for all!
Mate, have you met these mentally retarded intellectual pigmies on the left? They live, eat and breathe hypocrisy for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Exactly. Want to ID a lefty? Look for hypocrisy. Still not sure? Look for bad faith arguments in which they refuse to concede known objective facts and/or seek to deflect away from those objective facts by inserting frivolous points in an attempt to shift the goalposts.
Mr. Butz,
It’ll never happen: these people are criminals, and they only change their ways when incarcerated. And even then….
It’s hard not to laugh because of the idiocy of it all
I thought back then her questioning of “Faithful Electors” should return to haunt her.
It’s not right but none of these people were the sitting POTUS.
Sorry, this is not relevant. Clinton’s people didn’t try to replace any state’s electors with a different set of people. They just tried to persuade the legitimate electors to change their minds. That’s completely legal.
Well Trump would say that he tried to prevent illegitmate electors form being seated.
If he said that, he’d be lying.
How? At least 271 illegitimate electors managed to get through.
That is, they did UNLESS you support the Biden lie. Then it was just a normal election with only the usual amount of Democrat cheating.
But Trump WAS trying to prevent the coup.
It’s entirely relevant.
No, it is not relevant, because it is not like what Trump did. It is a completely different thing, therefore regardless of whether either of them were legitimate, no analogy can be drawn from one to the other.
You’re wrong.
I’ll see your “You’re wrong,” and raise you a “He’s right.”
Speaking of a Milhouse irrelevancy, then there is the two slates of electors sent to DC from Hawaii in 1960. IIRC Nixon, as President of the Senate, resolved the question against himself by asking for unanimous consent to seat the electors for Kennedy. But obviously that couldn’t be true because Milhouse finds an alternate slate of electors to be illegal. However Milhouse finds completely legal harassing Trump electors into changing their votes (so-called “faithless electors” which are illegal under some state’s statutes). But he has excellent legal company with Lawrence Tribe agreeing with him on that point – uh, that is I suspect his opinion excludes Democrat electors switching to Republican
The two sets of potential Hawaii electors voted on the day, on the explicit condition that whichever set turned out to be the legitimate electors would be counted and the other set would not. And that is what happened. There was NO attempt to have Congress decide which set to count, let alone to have Nixon decide it. Nixon did not resolve any question; he simply noted that two certificates had been received, and that the court had ruled that the D certificate was valid and the R certificate was not, and therefore Congress had the duty to count the D one and not the R one. He did not claim that there was any other option.
That makes it very different from what Trump attempted in 2021. Had he tried to have the R electors counted anyway, that would have violated the Electoral Count Act, which means if that act is constitutional it would have been illegal. I think Eastman is probably correct that the ECA is unconstitutional, which means that had the Rs insisted on having their electors counted instead, it would have had to go to the Supreme Court. But there is nothing in the constitution that would have given Nixon the power to decide it himself.
Like Trump calling State officials to persuade them to do their job, right.
Those officials from a certain state will be the best witnesses for Trump,
Yes, exactly. That was completely legitimate.
There’s historical precedent for the establishment of alternate electors and proffering them as substitutes. It’s not illegal to offer an alternate slate of electors, never was.
No, it isn’t illegal. Attempting to get the wrong set counted might be illegal, but sending them in just in case is not.
I think you’re full of it! Either the state legislature OR the Congress can decide the legality of electors, either of which is legal.
No, no, no, no, no.
Old News! It’s time to Move On.
To Trump, only Trump.
Hillary Cinton’s worst crimes are not subject to any statute of limitations.
Yes, they are. And for most if not all of them the statute has already passed. Certainly for the ones that are beyond dispute; the statute passed on them long ago. She is a multiple felon and she has got away with it.
It’s likely that in 2017 there were still felonies she could have been tried for, had Trump kept his promise. But he never intended to keep it. It was a completely cynical promise that he fully intended to ignore; he was mocking his supporters by making the promise in the first place, and those who seriously thought he would fulfill it were suckers.
“”those who seriously thought he would fulfill it were suckers.””
And they still are. The number of Trump supporters who learned their lesson is miniscule. He’s still telling the same lies, and they’re still swallowing them and attacking anybody who tells them the truth.
As you state, she is a multiple felon and has “got away with it.” But how is this possible? Doesn’t the law exist to prevent that from happening? She compromised National Security to a frightening degree, she didn’t five finger discount a pack of Hubba Bubba from the convenience store. That statement is exactly why people no longer give a damn when individuals like you provide a “legal analysis” that attempts to bury their candidate of preference while at the same time acknowledging a repeat offender like Hillary Clinton continues to walk free with a shrug. Whether you are technically correct becomes irrelevant. People know the game is rigged, and when that occurs, no one gives a damn about the rule book anymore. Another way of putting it would be to say, “what difference at this point does it make?”
Zing! Day-um! You nailed it!
But Democrats were acting to save democracy and the rule of law.
Sadly, the pretend “insurrection” denied the opportunity to watch it play out in Congress, and to hear the arguments and evidence of the objectors. Unlike other occasions, there was Senate support. But the process was subverted.
“The most troubling of all, as The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway has extensively documented, was the Clinton campaign’s coordination and participation in what essentially was a coup attempt against Trump, starting with the Russia collusion hoax nonsense and culminating with the faithless electors plan”
Obama was in on it, too. Just look at how he put the “right” people on it. Some might call it sedition. It sure threw a monkey wrench into things from the very start. Resistance from outside the government and inside, secret and willing to bend rules and subvert, with impunity.
It continues. It’s too bad for America that Republican leadership does not have the courage to speak against it, save a few. Look at Bill Barr. Tail between his legs. Many Americans would respond and feel more free to exercise their free speech. It should be a clarion call going forward, to object to being played by those that pretending to care.
Right.
I am sure that former AG Barr and former Bush AG Gonzalez will make sure on their CNN interviews to bring up this hypocrisy while they tell us why Trump should go to prison for questioning election results (which defy any measure of reasonable judgement). The part of their act which is the best is lecturing that Trump did not do enough to stop the riot despite telling people to protest peacefully and of course being denied by Pelosi and the Mayor from using the National Guard for security.
The uniparty is able, willing and capable of arresting and incarcerating anyone who defies their agenda. The 1000 soon to be 2000 J6 prosecutions if Graves and the DOJ/FBI follow through on their threats, along with the pro life protestors, parents opposing trans insanity in schools, and soon any gun store owner/employee with clerical errors are just a message the unruly deplorables.
I fully expect the IRS to be turned loose on the supporters of incorrect candidates and policies and (Tea Party attacks on steroids) unlike Hunter they will not get any sweet heart deals.
It’s not hypocrisy. It’s hierarchy.
I will take tyranny for 1200 Alex.
IIRC didn’t Bill Krystol and company also try to get electors to just abstain to throw it inot the house of representatives and get Egg McMuffin elected?
Oh yes they did
And President Trump wanted to bury the hatchet and he did not pursue hillary
I really don’t think after all that was done to him by the deep state, they would have let him prosecute the byt$h
“”they would have let him prosecute the byt$h””
It was HIS decision. HE wouldn’t let THEM prosecute her.
gonzotx has a good point. It is possible that he believed that prosecuting HRC would be bad for our nation. Without being a mind reader, we will never know. That fat guy.. Bill somebody, could have grievously misinformed him.
Gonzo never has a point unless she copied it from somebody else. I didn’t pass any judgement on why
My computer just went crazy and posted the comment prematurely, which was to conclude with
….why he did it, but the fact is he did.
Oh yeah, and since we’re on the subject, what he refused to investigate and prosecute wasn’t some picayune election meddling – it was selling her office for not a few millions like those piker Bidens, she collected hundreds of millions from our enemies.
It’s also possible that he didn’t want the Clintons to pull out some of the dirt they have on their buddy buddy time together with Trump.
Anything is possible.
And, just to put the cherry on the sundae, Barr wasn’t AG. That was Jeff Sessions.
Slightly off topic: I can’t believe the Dems let anybody name a hurricane “hilary”.
It’s because it’s Hilary with one L. They wouldn’t have allowed it with two 🙂
.
I’ll see your “You’re wrong,” and raise you a “He’s right.”
That just makes you wrong too.
Actually, that makes me right, too. Thanks for playing along. 😛
It’s easy to come up with a list of at least 24 liberals since 2000 contesting election results and not one of them is under indictment.