General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton just floated the possibility of contesting the 2016 election
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-trump/index.html
Live TV
Hillary Clinton just floated the possibility of contesting the 2016 election
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 3:25 PM EDT, Mon September 18, 2017
(CNN) In interviews over the last week surrounding the release of her 2016 memoir "What Happened," Hillary Clinton has been hugely critical of President Donald Trump. She's suggested he is a misogynist and said repeatedly that she fears for the country with Trump in charge.
But in an interview Monday with NPR's Terry Gross, Clinton raised that critique up a notch -- not only questioning the legitimacy of Trump's presidency but refusing to rule out the possibility of contesting the results if Russian collusion is proven by special counsel Bob Mueller.
Here's the full text of the back-and-forth, courtesy of CNN's Dan Merica:
Clinton: No. I would not. I would say --
Gross: You're not going to rule it out?
Clinton: No, I wouldn't rule it out.
!!!!
This a big deal. The 2016 Democratic nominee, who won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, is expressly leaving open the possibility that she would pursue legal action to invalidate the last presidential election.
I've paid close attention to what Clinton's been saying since she lost the election and I have never heard her broach the possibility of a formal challenge of the results.
more...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-trump/index.html
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)Kate McKinnon gets to fight with Alec Baldwin!
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)She didn't say that. This is bullshit fake news headline that makes it seem that she's saying she will somehow illegally contest the election.
Come on du Wth?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Our democracy was fucked with. We need a hero. Hillary should be our President.
Many backed Trump before, who will back him now?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Only wish it were possible.
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
Terry Gross: 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?
Hillary: No. I would not. I would say
Gross: You're not going to rule it out.
Hillary: No, I wouldn't rule it out.
Gross: So what are the means, like, this is totally unprecedented in every way
Hillary: It is.
Gross: What would be the means to challenge it, if you thought it should be challenged?
Hillary: Basically I don't believe there are. There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be, 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.
Hillary: You know, the Kenya election was just overturned and really what's interesting about that and I hope somebody writes about it, Terry the Kenyan election was also a project of Cambridge Analytica, the data company owned by the Mercer family that was instrumental in the Brexit vote.
There's now an investigation going on in the U.K., because of the use of data and the weaponization of information. They were involved in the Trump campaign after he got the nomination, and I think that part of what happened is Mercer said to Trump, "We'll help you, but you have to take Bannon as your campaign chief. You've got to take Kellyanne Conway and these other people who are basically Mercer protégés."
And so we know that there was this connection. So what happened in Kenya, which I'm only beginning to delve into, is that the Supreme Court there said there are so many really unanswered and problematic questions, we're going to throw the election out and redo it. We have no such provision in our country. And usually we don't need it.
Now, I do believe we should abolish the Electoral College, because I was sitting listening to a report on the French election and the French political analyst said, "You know in our country the person with the most votes wins, unlike in yours." And I think that's an anachronism. I've said that since 2000.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)I heard the clip --
"Questioning" the results is NOT the same thing as "contesting" the results, and she's probably way too late to contest much if anything anyway.
Each state has its own laws on how their election results can be contested as I believe Jill Stein helped demo with some of the states she contested, and I'd lay bets that NONE of them have any deadlines that run out this far.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Her....
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,629 posts)It may be premature to speculate on this, but...depending on what Mueller finds, it could happen.
Time will tell.
livetohike
(22,145 posts)I don't see this causing a problem for anyone other than him.
BadgerMom
(2,771 posts)Absolutely not. Verging on tardy, if anything. We know of so much that's been turned up that a reasonable case could be made without Mueller.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)ananda
(28,866 posts)Please!
It's time for Dems to fight the Reeps on voter fraud,
suppression, and hacking!
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)And the media will ignore the double standard and question her audacity to continue to campaign after the election was done half a year ago.
we can do it
(12,189 posts)Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Will be back in full force is all I'm saying... but I will fully support the effort as I did her presidency should the time come.
greeny2323
(590 posts)What kind of nonsense is this? This is an extreme overreaction on the part of Cillizza, who is an idiot. Her comments don't warrant the article.
And Jesus fucking Christ. Some people here on DU need to learn the basics of how elections work. What Clinton says is irrelevant now.
cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)Let us dream!
I still wish Al Gore would!!
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)and I'll finally get my pony!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It seems like collusion with foreign enemies is too important to call irrelevant- no matter how you feel about the person taking about it. We've never seen anything like this- all bets are off.
BadgerMom
(2,771 posts)if conspiracy and vote manipulation can be proven, I think we are in uncharted waters. So, then, maybe we chart them.
we can do it
(12,189 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)when she doesn't know either?
Please explain the constitutional process for any such outcome. The system was designed specifically to prevent any such thing. You can impeach until you're "blue" in the face (excuse the pun) but Hillary will never be the person in line.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The possibility is this.
- Mueller obtains incontrovertible evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia and that Trump knew about it.
- Mueller confronts Trump and also approaches the Democrats and Hillary with the evidence. Mueller asks for Hillary's input into what should transpire since she is the aggrieved party
- A deal is struck to avoid prosecution for Trump and possibly others. The deal is that Pence will resign first and Trump will then appoint Hillary his VP. Trump then resigns. Hillary becomes President.
Do I think this is remotely likely? No. But this is the only way Hillary would become President on account of Mueller and his investigation.
The Republicans in the Senate I think would need to confirm Hillary becoming the new VP, but assuming it got that far they would likely go along with this to avoid a lengthy and damaging (to the GOP brand) impeachment and then criminal prosecution of Trump.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Trump and Pence can agree to whatever they want, and Trump can nominate whomever he wants to replace Pence if Pence agrees to resign, but it takes a majority of the House and Senate to confirm a replacement for Pence and if you think Congressional republicans are going to save Trump and Pence by picking Hillary (or any other Democrat for that matter) to become President -- something that would expose everyone of them who supported that result to almost certain primary defeats, your fooling yourself.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This is the least unlikely part of this scenario that is incredibly unlikely in general.
All you have to do to understand what I am talking about is to think Nixon/Agnew and remember or research the damage that caused to the GOP for the better part of 4-6 years and nobody big got prosecuted. AND that was BEFORE the internet and the 24 hour news cycle.
If Mueller has or gets the goods on Trump collusion with Russia, it's going to be a bloodbath.
The GOP will want it to go away as quickly as possible. Will that result in the scenario I posited? Extremely unlikely.
onenote
(42,714 posts)That's absurd. Any Republican that votes to make Hillary Clinton VP has destroyed his or her career. Not a possibility under any circumstances.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The GOP would not want to have a prolonged and agonizing impeachment and then subsequent 1-3 year prosecution of those who are guilty. The entire time this would be in the news and ruining the chances of Republicans running for all kinds of offices from getting elected. The after-effects would last 4-6 years after that. So we are talking a minimum of a 6-8 year rolling disaster of news, bad election results and you think they wouldn't want to avoid that?
THAT is what is really absurd.
onenote
(42,714 posts)You seem to forget how deeply Repubs hate Hillary Clinton. Hell, the most recent polls continue to show that overall Hillary has a favorability rating of only 41 percent. While I don't have a breakdown by party, it's pretty obvious that Hillary's ratings among Republicans must be well under 30 percent -- probably in the 20s or even teens.
Any repub that was complicit in making Hillary president would lose a primary challenge.
(By the way defending Nixon was fatal to five of the ten repubs on the House Judiciary Committee who voted against all of the Nixon impeachment articles. (Of course, that was in an era when gerrymandering wasn't as prevalent as it is today.
Any "deal" that would put Hillary in the White House is without question a non-starter. Indeed, any deal that puts a Democrat in the White House is probably a non-starter. That's the political reality. Repubs would rather throw Trump and Pence under the bus than crash their own careers. (Most of the repubs on the Judiciary Committee who voted to impeach Nixon were re-elected).
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and the Supreme Court admitted that, when they said their decision wouldn't set a precedent.
onenote
(42,714 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)who hacked into the election systems actually changed votes, all bets are off.
onenote
(42,714 posts)In Bush v. Gore there was an actual Constitutional provision -- the equal protection clause -- that was alleged to be violated by having different methods of counting ballots in different counties. (While I think that was a bullshit conclusion, it was at least tied to something in the Constitution).
Which constitutional provision would provide the basis for overturning the election and ordering ....well, what exactly would the Court order?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The Electoral College is is in conflict with the rest of the Constitution, because it gives different weight to the votes of people in different states.
Which may be bullshit, because of the Senate's structure, but that hasn't stopped the SC before.
onenote
(42,714 posts)The Equal Protection Clause doesn't override the provisions of the Constitution establishing an electoral college mechanism. To think it does, or that a majority of the Supreme Court (or even one member of the Supreme Court) would think it does, goes beyond dreaming into the land of absurdity.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)in the service of a particular aim.
It would all depend on the circumstances, which we don't yet know.
onenote
(42,714 posts)But please come back and visit the real world from time to time.
we can do it
(12,189 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Gore's case was entirely about how electors were going to be chosen. Gore was trying to get them chosen based upon a vote count. He had a method he wanted to use and he went to the court that could force that to happen, the Florida Supreme Court. Bush opposed that method on federal grounds, which is how the State Supreme Court decision ended up in the Federal Courts, and therefor at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said the State Court decision violated federal law. (Actually, the federal constitution). As such, the decision of the Florida Secretary of State on the outcome of the election was allowed to stand, and the Bush Electors were seated in the EC.
Notably, the electors were going to be chosen one way or another. The Florida State Legislature was getting ready to direct the appointment of Bush's electors (which both the federal and state constitution allowed). But all of this was done within the context of existing legal precedent (well, except the SC decision that somehow the recount violated equal protection. That was a new one and even the SC wasn't really sold on it because as you point out they indicated that this really shouldn't be used in future decisions).
In this situation, the EC has been chosen, it has voted, the congress accepted the results of that vote, the president has been sworn in, and there is no constitutional provision to remove him, replace him, or otherwise rerun or undo the election. The only path to anything of this sort is through the various presidential succession amendments and none of them really put HRC in the path of succession.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)And SCOTUS often says that their rulings are specific to that case and aren't setting a precedent. It doesn't mean that when they say that they are saying that what they are doing is unconstitutional. It means that their ruling is ABOUT THAT CASE ONLY.
It's not that hard. I don't like the Gore decision, but it was constitutional and it was something set out in US law ahead of time.
triron
(22,006 posts)If she entertains that it means she has given it serious study.
It is not just a flamboyant remark.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)She ONLY said she would question it... NOT contest it.
Read the NPR transcript... http://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/551217204/hillary-clinton-says-shes-optimistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)There isn't all that much to know, and alot of people all know all there is to know.
And I don't really think she said what people think she did. Yes, it would be an interesting "challenge" to the existing presidency if it is found that he colluded. However, the mechanism for acting upon that knowledge would be impeachment, and possibly treason charges. It could reach to the VP as well. Interestingly, there is even a suggestion it could reach McConnell as well. But again, none of that leads to HRC being seated as POTUS. And I'm pretty sure she knows that.
HoustonDave
(60 posts)specifically the 25th. Try to find in there where HRC fits in... I am pretty sure "former Secretary of State" is not listed. Get Trump out, you inherit Pence. Get him out... and so it goes.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)It's generally the point I make. There is no conceivable way that HRC gets into the line of succession. And even the inconceivable ways are nearly impossible to occur. And they'd be the virtual definition of "constitutional crisis". It is the problem with what Trump did. It could create a very serious crisis in this country where it becomes problematic to determine who is "in charge". Especially if it is uncovered that GOP leadership in the congress was also complicit.
we can do it
(12,189 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)Not to me, not to democrats.
LeftInTX
(25,367 posts)I heard the interview
rock
(13,218 posts)If it's proved he's illegitimate? Sure, the Constitution can't do anything about it, but it would certainly be a great time we would all have if everybody, including the media, if we referred to trump as "The Illegitimate President Trump!" every time we said his name.
cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)Should!!
Is there a statute of limitations?
mythology
(9,527 posts)It's a non-starter. There is no do over.
Mr. Evil
(2,845 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 18, 2017, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)
And I am aghast of anybody who thinks that there is.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)There is a fantasy on the part of some small slice of the 2nd amendment crowd that refers to the amendment as the "reset button" on the constitution. Which is sort of silly to suggest that an extra-constitutional method is somehow "constitutional".
The closest thing to any of this is the Constitutional Convention, and even that is a "constitutional" process.
Strangely, that'd be about the only way to redo an election. One could convene a CC, replace the constitution, and in the process require new elections for various federal offices, immediately in essence. Never happen but there is a path there....
longship
(40,416 posts)There are too damned many madmen who want to repeal the establishment claus. They are the same folks who claim that "This is a Christian country."
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I've thought for some time we need to amend the constitution to remove this feature. It was created by the very people that had just done exactly that. It really was a method for undoing the constitution if it was decided it wasn't working out. After 200+ years, I think we can safely say it has been working, and should merely be improved, not scrapped.
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)...it's been too long, and there's no legal basis in the Constitution to challenge the outcome of a Presidential election.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)I also don't see how questioning Trump's legitimacy equates to suggesting that there will be a redo.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The logical leap from "I would question" to "non-existent form of legal action" is built into the OP. For people who ARE dumb.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)How much time did the founding fathers allow between dropping the cheese on the floor and still being able to eat it safely?
And isn't there a no-backsies provision as well?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Orrex
(63,215 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,064 posts)How the framers knew a black light would work is beyond me, though? They didn't even have electricity yet!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,064 posts)I should have figured that out!
onenote
(42,714 posts)SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Questioning the legitimacy =/= contesting in the sense that the author implies. HRC can view the election as illegitimate, but that doesn't mean she's formally contesting the results in a manner that would invalidate it.
spanone
(135,844 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
johnp3907
(3,732 posts)Response to johnp3907 (Reply #21)
Name removed Message auto-removed
7962
(11,841 posts)groundloop
(11,519 posts)Too bad there's not a place in DU for posting troll responses so we can have a good laugh.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)to open the hacking and collusion and put it in the history books.
Nice idea, I really like it.
msongs
(67,413 posts)samnsara
(17,622 posts)...but its a start. This dialog MUST remain open. We have to get to the bottom of this. Hoping Mueller's results will answer a lot of those questions for us.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)12 months after the fact. I'm sure we'd all get some satisfaction out of it -- including me -- but I think it would set a bad precedent. Contesting the race in November or December, 2016, would have been a better idea and better timing.
Of course, it depends on what Mueller finds. Sure Russia meddled in our election, as we have in other country's elections. But, if there is strong evidence that Trump was directly involved -- such that it was more than some fake news (ie, lies), attempted hacks that didn't really translate to changes in the vote total, etc. -- that calls for some harsh action. If it's just aides, then indict them and wait for Trump's pardon (while shaming him for letting terrorists like that go unpunished).
still_one
(92,217 posts)we can do it
(12,189 posts)still_one
(92,217 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)such as ballot box stuffing
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2008/10/stolen_electionsas_american_as_apple_pie.html
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)I could wake up from this nightmare!
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Cillizza has no credibility here. He lives-and loves-- to do this shit.
melman
(7,681 posts)He didn't. It's right there in the interview.
http://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/551217204/hillary-clinton-says-shes-optimistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)And I know Cillizza's abysmal track record ion all things Hillary. Hillary isn't going to contest the election. Like she also says, there isn't a path to do so. This isn't "big" it's Cillizza bullshit.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)you still haven't.
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)This faux pResident is exhausting and depressing for all America.
JoeStuckInOH
(544 posts)And there's only 538 of them. And then their votes are certified like half a dozen times. I'm sure the count is accurate. There's also no mechanism in place to contest the vote or to allow an electoral college "revote".
This is absurd and really looks pathetic by whatever group would seriously discuss this issue at this point.
Satch59
(1,353 posts)She will not be the only one questioning the legitimacy and she's not calling for a do over but this would be the ultimate constitional crisis and would have to involve congress and probably the Supreme Court to figure it out. Would be an amazing event to witness and as long as it begins with Trump & Co gone, then I want a front row seat...
bucolic_frolic
(43,176 posts)if enough members of the administration and a few dozen members of Congress are hauled off to jail leaving a Democratic majority
metalbot
(1,058 posts)There could be video proof of Trump and Putin colluding while Pence and Ryan perform nude interpretive dance, and it still wouldn't be a "constitutional crisis". The electoral college voted. Their vote was certified. Donald Trump is President.
The Constitution has a very specific remedy for this - impeachment, or otherwise finding the president incompetent to hold office.
JHan
(10,173 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)But the actual quote doesn't say that. It says questioning the legitimacy. One can publicly attack the legitimacy of the election without having any means to overturn the result.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Vinca
(50,276 posts)even though it should be. The only scenario is Mueller getting Trump and then we get stuck with Pence or maybe even Ryan. We should focus on the next election and get a majority in both houses so we can control the fucking mess we're in somewhat.
delisen
(6,044 posts)we have an illegitimate President and Vice President. To accept that situation would be wrong.
We, as a culture, will need to address it. At this point no one knows how that will take place.
It is an open question, awaiting more evidence.
It is an unclosed door, and there is no point in trying to slam it shut.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Electors are chosen by state legislatures.
Did you know you could legitimately elect a president without ever having a popular vote?
The state legislatures would just appoint electors and they would vote.
The state of South Carolina never even had a popular vote for president until 1868. The elections before that were perfectly legitimate.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)States run their own elections of the electors, in accordance with the various challenge provisions built into their laws - none of which provide the possibility of a legal challenge months later.
Fullduplexxx
(7,864 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Fullduplexxx
(7,864 posts)States run their own elections of the electors,. And they did till scotus picked for Florida.
onenote
(42,714 posts)What Constitutional provision would provide the basis for a challenge to Trump's election?
Fullduplexxx
(7,864 posts)Equal protection . And iirc they stopped it citing damage to the new President but either way we both know they stopped it to keep Bush as potus. Things are the way they are until they arent
onenote
(42,714 posts)Whose lawyers would be pulling something out their butts?
Gross: What would be the means to challenge it, if you thought it should be challenged?
Hillary: Basically I don't believe there are. There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be, 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.
bucolic_frolic
(43,176 posts)is that answer to Birtherism ... proven election hacking would totally illegitimize the Trump Administration and everything it has done which after all the majority of Americans did not vote for
Hillary is still tickin'
You GO girl
triron
(22,006 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)I wouldn't read as much into Hillary's comments as some are dong.
She knows that there is no constitutional way to "contest" the 2016 presidential election.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)I've fucking had it watching this piece of shit parading around pretending to be President.
GetRidOfThem
(869 posts)I demonstrated through the entire recount process in Bush vs Gore. Once an election is called, nothing, not even the devil's participaion, will change the outcome, Al Franken being the exception.
We want to believe we are in a democracy, but outside the actual vote days we are not, and it is delusional to think that those that gained power during an election, no matter how flawed, will ever, ever give up that victory. Principles be damned! Our choices are (a) Mueller and (b) 2018.
LeftInTX
(25,367 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)To my knowledge, there's no constitutional way to "invalidate" an election after the EC votes have been cast, tallied, registered, verified and validated. What's done is done. As wrong as it was... it's done and it breaks my heart every day. I grieve for our once-great nation.
RandySF
(58,899 posts)I am listening to Fresh Air right and Hillary said there's NO LEGAL BASIS TO CHALLENGE THE RESULTS but one can question the moral legitimacy of Trump's win on what happened.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)Thank you.
LeftInTX
(25,367 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)Once we agree upon that , it is part of history and can make significant changes to our election process.
If there is a flaw in our constitutional process we need to start addressing it but we also operate with political and cultural rules. Do not underestimate the power of these.
Trump is not the worst possible outcome. a megalomaniac could get into office who pushes the nuclear button minutes after inauguration and there are many other lesser scenarios that could be very destructive.
We have lived with a norm for generations that political candidates can say anything and not be held accountable for outright lies. In the 21st century this may have to change that folkway.
The emergence of fact checkers is recent, and suggests we are heading in that direction anyway.
If Mueller proves that the interference in our Election 2016 was criminal and Democrats
were in power in Congress, what do you think they could do to achieve justice?
What happens if Pence was involved in election malfeasance or some other crime. Do you think they would do nothing or simply agree to an illegitimate president's nominee for a replacement?
We are in a fluid situation and openings will arise. This is one reason that we need to counter the unproven suggestions that Trump won because some underemployed, low-income men in rust belt states were sending a message.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)But, alas, I doubt it can. Still, these are insane times, so anything is possible.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)chris cillizza poops on the floor
me: dude clean it up
chris: youre just goading me
me: nah dude it smells just clean it up pls
Link to tweet
Greybnk48
(10,168 posts)Hoping upon hope!
spanone
(135,844 posts)triron
(22,006 posts)Most just want to pretend.
spanone
(135,844 posts)triron
(22,006 posts)How many votes were switched or not counted?
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)She said she would not rule out "questioning the legitimacy of the election." It is not the same thing.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Used the word contest
I believe that is intentional. She is smart enough to understand how the Constitution works.
longship
(40,416 posts)Tatiana
(14,167 posts)Listening to Hillary's interviews, she is clearly frightened at the direction our country has taken.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)idea of the clowns in the WH freaking out is the best mental image of the day.
LostinRed
(840 posts)Unless the judge he appoint would be kick off because if trump is illegitimate so is he. Then it would split and go back to whatever the lower court rules.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Hillary didn't say what the OP said she said.
peggysue2
(10,830 posts)She said she reserved the right to question the legitimacy of the election, not contest the results. In fact, she was quite clear that there is no Constitutional mechanism to overturn an election result (as was done recently by the Supreme Court in Kenya). She was also clear that academics who argue to the contrary are basing their conclusions on weak sauce.
Cillizza must be desperate for clicks going with this headline. Questioning the legitimacy of the election does not equal contesting the results and in no way does Hillary Clinton equate the two. Only Cillizza made that reckless leap.
Ugh!
shanny
(6,709 posts)there is no mechanism for a do-over in the Constitution.
So getting all fired up about the possibility is pointless.
Initech
(100,080 posts)Let's hoping it's not. Fuck Trump.
onenote
(42,714 posts)What exactly would be the constitutional or statutory provision on which the challenge would be based?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Sell my Madam President mags!
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,862 posts)last year, any time before the Electoral College met.
Even then, there is NO Constitutional way for an election to be challenged or overthrown, and the more energy people spend on wishful thinking about this, the less energy being devoted to electing a Democratic House and Senate next year.