Hillary mulls challenging legitimacy of 2016 election, cites Russian influence
Hillary Clinton on Monday would not rule out the possibility of challenging the results of the 2016 presidential election, saying it’s clear the Russians influenced the outcome and that the legitimacy of President Trump ’s victory could be called into question as congressional and independent probes into Russian involvement move forward.
In an interview with NPR, the former secretary of state — who will speak in Washington on Monday evening as part of her nationwide book tour — would not rule out formally contesting the results of the election.
“I wouldn’t rule it out,” she said, though she quickly admitted there’s virtually no legal path forward, and that challenging election results at this point would be unprecedented.
“There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be [possible], but I don’t think they’re on strong ground. But people are making those arguments. I just don’t think we have a mechanism,” Mrs. Clinton said.
Monday’s interview is the latest in a whirlwind of appearances the former first lady has given as she promotes her book, “What Happened.” Over the past week, she’s continued to blame Sen. Bernard Sanders and others for her defeat, and she’s also doubled down on her call to end the Electoral College.
Tags
Who is online
101 visitors
Well, she would be pretty stupid to NOT challenge the legitimacy of an election that turns out to be proven illegitimate. But then again, just like Obama, she can't please some people no matter what she does. HDS, ODS - it's all the same to morons.
I don't think she will challenge it. It would be too hard to prove that the Russian thing was THE cause of the outcome.
Everyone will know it is true, but in a legal sense it would be hard to prove.
On the other hand, they could use any Mueller investigation results in articles of impeachment.
I never wanted Hillary Clinton to be president, but that sentiment is 1,000 times stronger for Donald Trump. The fact is, when an athlete tests positive for performance enhancing drugs, he or she loses what they thought they won. This isn't because the drug positively made the difference in their victory, it's because they had an illegal assist. The same principle should be applied to our presidential elections. Any dirtbag that deliberately goes to illegal lengths to influence the outcome of an election should be stripped of the prize - particularly when the illegal behavior borders on being a traitor to the country you are seeking to lead. In this case, the prize should be delivered to the winner of the popular vote.
Here's the photo that actually goes with the article you seeded.
It seems a little biased in it's own right, but still a far cry from the one you added instead.
Thank you for that actual photo. Badfish - you seem to go out of your way to find the most unflattering pictures of Hillary.
There are flattering ones?
What were liberals saying in October about how unamerican it was to question the result of an election, again?
Hillary said it would be "threatening our democracy". Of course thats when she thought she was going to win.
The supreme hypocrisy of the left remains unaltered. Btw the left and the liberal media have tried to delegitimize this President. We are a far cry from those halcyon days when Richard Nixon said he would not question the strange circumstances of the 1960 election for fear of dividing the nation. Today the far left thinks its essential to divide & conguer
Trump threatened to dispute the election based on fantasy illegal voters.
If Trump is proved to have colluded with Russia it won't be a fantasy.
Assange is a Russian tool with no credibility.
And if they cant prove collusion, can we finally get an apology from you and the media?
Apologize? The Trump family (through Don Jr.) has already admitted that they attempted to collude with the Russians.
There goes any apology right there.
I guess it's a good thing they never actually got to colluding. I know those who have smeared this President will never apologize. I was hoping for some principles from you
I have a strong principle. I don't apologize to people who wanted to game the election by accepting aid from a hostile foreign nation.
We've known she was a threat a long time ago.
"Assange is a Russian tool with no credibility." And that's the truth.
Speak for yourself. I know she is no threat. The fat orange turd in the White Trash House (thanks to this turd) is the threat.
She's the one that made the statement. By her own words, she is a threat to democracy.
Nope - she was referring to Donald Rump
And it's funny she made the comment about the President and now she is doing EXACTLY what she thought the President would do.
Really shows who the treat really is.
LMAO don't hold your breath.
Which liberals said that? In what context? Who said liberals said that?
Pretty much every one from Hillary Clinton on down said it was wrong to question elections. Including every liberal on this site, that I recall.
Pretty much every one from Hillary Clinton on down said it was wrong to question elections. Including every liberal on this site, that I recall.
Sean … don't give me "pretty much" … give me a direct response or leave it alone.
Clinton is a right-wing punching bag/poster child maligned to a great extent by debunked lies that hang on because it's easy to run it out rather than address actual issues and facts.
Bash Hillary and whistle past the graveyard on Trump/Russia … and worse … delude yourselves with the "fake news" dismissive circle jerk on every inconvenient truth, and spread via ignorance, stupidity or blind partisanship, convenient untruths.
A narcissistic taunt machine is the logical outcome to a successful hateful campaign swallowed hook, line and sinker by legitimately angry and frustrated Americans … and those who fulfilled their dream of a bigots'-bigot in the White House.
Trump and his mirror-image lunatic in North Korea may well taunt each another into a nuclear holocaust!
I'm no Clinton fan … never was … but those who metaphorically have "shit-where-they-eat" by voting for a Donald Trump … may, God-forbid, see that "mushroom cloud" we were warned about in the Bush 44 years.
It's no longer about politics … it's about two crazies with big bombs!
As long as dems keep thinking the reasons she put in the book are why she lost I'll be happy with a Trump second term.
Hillary Clinton is a vile piece of crap. A nasty woman! And, her husband doesn't owe her anymore for putting up with his shit. I am out of here, Hillary, he says.
I hope Hillary Clinton continues to spew her inane comments as long as she is able, she is one of the most divisive politicians ever in American Politics and will ensure that the Dem's continue to lose elections.
The year is 2056 ... Newstalkers has evolved into a slick and popular social media juggernaut ... members still hyperventilating about Hillary Clinton ...
Out of curiosity, not being schooled in American political laws, what would happen if Hillary were to succeed? Would there be a new election? Since it's a question of legitimacy concerning the election as a whole, rather than just deposing Trump, I assume Pence would not take over. Perhaps it would be a gamble, because enough voters who voted for Trump and still support him, and others who feel that the electoral process should not be set aside for her reasons, and if Trump quits and the Republicans run a more acceptable candidate, maybe it could be number 4 defeat for Hillary. Many people might not want to vote for a 3 time loser. After all, America is a baseball-loving country (James Earl Jones' speech about baseball in Field of Dreams established that).
To my knowledge there is no precedent to i. e. Decertify a POTUS election. But, should it be definitively determined that the outcome in 2016 was flawed to the extent that its validity could not be verified, something revolutionary would need to be done!
I believe if it ever got that far my friend, it would result in a bloodbath....
Would that blood be spilled in defense of a treasonous coalition to steal American elections?
That would be a pretty fucked up defense.
Are you implying that there would be a greater outrage over justice than over a foreign usurpation of the rights of Americans to fair elections?
Really?
Nope, what I'm saying is that there will be such anger amongst the population that people will view it as a usurpation of their right to choose by whatever political forces has forced such a situation to develop.
And that my friend is what caused the South to take up arms.....
And it would cause many to take up arms today.
Any result that causes the results to be changed will be viewed as outside the constitution. And I don't think that there is any resolution to such a question except by force of arms.
The "usurpation" is that of the election itself and votes that were cast because of a disinformation campaign in which the "winner" participated.
What rational American would rage to keep an illegitimate POTUS in office?
Emphasis on "rational"!
I could see the so-called deplorables siding with Putin , but what American with a brain would not want a clean fill in the way of this and all elections going forward?
Why are we even debating this?
The only viable way I could see such a thing is if it is actually PROVEN that the Russians caused the election of T-Rump.
Without any shadow of doubt, plain for a blind man to see.
That is the level of proof you would need to eliminate T-Rump as president.
And if that ever came to pass, the answer would not be a new election, T-Rump would be deposed and the VP would step up, If Pence was connected to it with absolute proof, then the Speaker steps up.
Any attempt to usurp the remedies of the US constitution would be an abrogation of said document.
And a LOT of people would take that to heart and act on it.
If one side doesn't want to follow it and use such an occasion to abrogate it, then we all suffer the consequences.
Why are we debating it, cause there are always two sides. My side says that if T-Rump did something outside the rules to gain the office, we throw HIM out, we don't throw out the will of the American people as expressed through the conventions of our constitution.
Others will argue that such is moot, If T-Rump did something like this it is not a reason to throw out the entire foundation this nation was created upon. Some will think it is.
That, will cause a civil war.
Ordinarily I would agree on the succession to the Speaker, however, that assuming a legitimately-elected POTUS rather than dismissal or resignation for misfeasance, etc. .
And if we wind up in the Logan Act territory ... as wild as that may seem ... if there have been acts of treason that led to a stolen election ... collusion with criminals like Felix Sater ... a shit load of non-Trump Americans will hit the streets yelling "Fix this f'n mess and no more pissing in our face and telling us it's raining.
Great debate here my friend.
It was! I enjoyed reading it.
Nothing will ever come of a challenge though since there is no proof of changing any votes. There can be all of the collusion that would fill a Hillary supporters dreams and it wouldn't prove that is why she failed to win three blue states.
If those states are like what I saw at the poll I worked she lost because the Obama voter stayed home. They were out in force in '08 and '12. That wasn't the fault of the Russians.
If she and the democrats finagle a way to have a re-election, watch for the greatest landslide in US political history. (next to GW's unanimous wins that is)
If only for the American people to stand up and be counted in one voice.....
DON'T FUCK WITH OUR ELECTIONS. From outside or inside the country. Her political day is done, her sun has set.
Time to move on, nothing to see here people.
It would be a bloodbath and all thanks to the left.
There is no possible constitutional mechanism that allows Hillary to be president without winning the election in 2020.
Those who advocate for it are championing a coup and the destruction of the republic.
I agree; this is not about Hillary Clinton … it's much bigger than any candidate; this is about concerns and future prevention of any manner by which an American election might be compromised.
It's about Democrats trying to destroy the Republic.
The simplest solution is usually the best one.
In my opinion, the rights of the states to determine how the EC electors are allocated is a big huge part of this equation. it is one of the items that Thomas Jefferson said was a problem with the constitution.
An amendment to the constitution should be crafted to mandate the EC electors vote the way their district voted. or in the alternative do away with electors completely. it is an anachronistic throwback to a non technology capable society.
District votes are tabulated almost immediately and pronounced and are recorded and posted electronically almost universally.
Just have the SoS offices nationwide post the votes on their sites and reported to a national office for reporting. solves a lot of problems and makes it that much more difficult for anyone to sway an election cause they now have to deal with 538 distinct districts that have equal weight. ie no more concentrated swing districts which determine the outcome.
All districts count equally.
That would resolve the problems and remove the political parties, (hence removing political influence peddling also) from directly effecting the election process through gerrymandering and other vile techniques.
The only reasonable resolution.
Good solution! Some states do it now and nothing prevents them from doing it other than political will.
Hillary knows damn well that there's no constitutional method for decertifying an election for any reason. The only way to remove Trump is to impeach him and that's not going to happen unless democrats take control of both the House and Senate. And to take the House and Senate, they'll need a platform based on something other than open borders, sanctuary cities, and tranny soldiers flipping genders on the taxpayers' dime.
And this constant nonsense about she lost the election because of Russian intervention is just plain stupid. All the Russians did was expose her lying ass trying to rig the primary. She got busted but the MSM drowned the story out with nonstop stories of Trump's pussy grabbing escapades. Her election shenanigan didn't escape the Bernie supporters, however, who went apeshit and conspired to cut her threat. They figured that, if enough of them didn't vote or voted for Trump in key states, then they could nail her rotten ass to the wall. She lost because she's an awful candidate.
The old witch should retire before some kid from Kansas drops a house on her.
She's a bitter harridan.
You have one of the strangest obsessions with Hillary Clinton I have seen.
Make sure the ruby slippers aren't grabbed by a dem!
She lost for the same reason she lost to Obama. I hope the dems never figure that out.
She lost for the same reason she lost to Obama. I hope the dems never figure that out.
Too bad they couldn't blame her loss to Obama on the Russians. Obama ran out of nowhere as a nobody and passed her by like she was standing still. Trump, who she thinks is an imbecile, snatched the election out from under her when the polls said she was a near certainty to win. She's worthless. The next time she donates one of her expanding pants suits to goodwill, maybe she should stay in em.
She lost for the same reason she lost to Obama. I hope the dems never figure that out.
Too bad they couldn't blame her loss to Obama on the Russians. Obama ran out of nowhere as a nobody and passed her by like she was standing still. Trump, who she thinks is an imbecile, snatched the election out from under her when the polls said she was a near certainty to win. She's worthless. The next time she donates one of her expanding pants suits to goodwill, maybe she should stay in em.