I heard the “Fresh Air” interview Monday night and knew it would stir controversy.
Terri Gross repeatedly pushed Clinton to confirm one way or the other whether she would contest the election. Clinton said there is no constitutional way to accomplish that, and tried to dismiss the question. Finally, when Gross wouldn’t let it go, Clinton said that if she had been elected, investigating Russian interference would be a priority. But she didn’t give in to the what Gross was trying to do - get a juicy quote.
It didn’t matter, because pundits immediately re-interpreted Clinton’s comments as “Hell yes, I’d contest the election!” Oh well.
I’m sorry christian, but I had nothing to do with it. Talk to Obama and Clinton for giving us Trump. They both failed working class America. That’s at the core of our present misery.
Sorry darcy, but every single voter, including you, knew what was at stake. If you threw away your vote, you are directly responsible for Trump. If you undermined the only person on the ticket who had a chance at stopping him, you are directly responsible for Trump.
Strict leftist ideology puts Republicans in the White House. It put Nixon in the White House, Reagan, and George W. Bush. And it gave Trump the victory.
You can continue to refuse to take responsibility for your actions, but you helped elect Trump. You could have stopped it by setting aside your precious ideals and doing what was best for our country and the most vulnerable amongst us. But you chose your “conscience” over the well-being of millions of Americans.
What venue do you suggest would have jurisdiction? What authority could they invoke? What alternative to actual standing to invoke an actual law do you propose?
Yes all legal/constitutional/political means possible.
I yield to you and to others who have previously noted the lack of constitution or legal mechanisms to address illegitimate or rigged elections by annulling them, overturning the results – use the appropriate legally precise term here.
As a non-lawyer, I cannot imagine any body of election law, much less ours, that does not address seriously flawed elections.
I’ve written about this before. I recognize that there is no precedent and most legal scholars say there’s no remedy available, but I do think that there should be recourse when there is a stolen election, and we should use every effort to explore whether Courts will entertain a remedy under the US Constitution. The short version: A fraud was perpetrated on the Electoral College due to the conspiracy between Trump and Russia to violate US election laws and interfere in the election. Had the electors known of the Trump-Russia conspiracy, it is reasonable to presume that many electors would not have voted for Trump because electors could reasonably conclude that Trump could not fulfill the oath of office due to a blatant act of disloyalty and unprecedented continuing conflicts. This is basically a common law theory of fraud/misrepresentation applied to the Constitution. The electors have a constitutional duty under Article 2/3 to choose the President. Their ability to exercise that judgment was impaired due to a crime committed by Trump and the concealment of material facts related to that crime. Therefore, the electors should have a claim that they have a constitutional right to have all material facts available before making a decision, and #trumprussia represents a material fact that would’ve impacted that choice. The Courts should throw out the election result, order the EC to reconvene and choose a President, and disqualify Trump. I think the electors have a better case for standing than HRC under this theory.
OMFG, do you have any idea what evildoers, say today’s Republicans, could do to screw up our elections and governance with that tool? No way. Besides which, that is vague or overbroad, depending on how the Court defines material. All-in-all, the kind of political question that the Court will refuse unless it’s the last year of a millennium.
