Hillary Clinton just floated the possibility of contesting the 2016 election

[babylonsister]

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:

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?

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]

1. It's happening!!!!!

Kate McKinnon gets to fight with Alec Baldwin!

[elehhhhna]

84. Headline is baloney tho.

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]

89. She should legally contest the election.

Our democracy was fucked with. We need a hero. Hillary should be our President.

Many backed Trump before, who will back him now?

[Hortensis]

131. "Do you think, at some point, it would be legitimate to challenge the legitimacy of the election?"

Only wish it were possible.

Hillary: I don't know if there's any legal constitutional way to do that. I think you can raise questions. ... He (Trump) knew they were trying to do whatever they could to discredit me with emails, so there's obviously a trail there, but I don't know that in our system we have any means of doing that, but I just wanted to add to the point you made. There's no doubt they influenced the election: We now know more about how they did that.

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]

100. Exactly

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]

2. Whoa. Well the PTB did screw her over, which is ironic because people thought "they" were coronating

Her....

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. And who can blame her? I cannot.

It may be premature to speculate on this, but...depending on what Mueller finds, it could happen.

Time will tell.

[livetohike]

48. She has nothing to lose, so why not annoy Trump?

I don't see this causing a problem for anyone other than him.

[BadgerMom]

70. Premature?

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]

4. YES, please please please please!!!!

[ananda]

5. Do it!

Please!

It's time for Dems to fight the Reeps on voter fraud,
suppression, and hacking!

[Not Ruth]

6. She should treat it like a campaign, make stops all over the country rallying her supporters

[Tiggeroshii]

37. And Trump will complain about it as he continues to do the same damn thing

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]

105. Who cares if the freak complains? He complains every damn day.

[Tiggeroshii]

107. The double standard and false equivalencies by the media

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]

7. Huh?

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]

10. Oh shush

Let us dream!

I still wish Al Gore would!!

[Not Ruth]

52. Maybe Gore will also

[cilla4progress]

87. Yes,

and I'll finally get my pony!

[bettyellen]

11. Agree about the author- but last year's election was totally unprecedented

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]

74. True that there are no constitutional remedies but

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]

109. Yes. We must chart them.

[pnwmom]

14. How can you say that when you don't know what Mueller will discover? Why should she rule it out

when she doesn't know either?

[zipplewrath]

18. How?

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]

29. There is theoretically a possibility, although I cannot imagine this would occur.

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]

61. Why would Congressional repubs agree to a process that resulted in a Democrat becoming president

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]

118. Exactly as I explained, to avoid having Trump, Pence and a large retinue of underlings prosecuted.

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]

120. They aren't going to sacrifice themselves to save Trump and Pence.

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]

121. They aren't sacrificing themselves. You need to think this through and research the history

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]

122. I have thought this through.

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]

30. There was no "constitutional process" for the way Al Gore was denied the Presidency,

and the Supreme Court admitted that, when they said their decision wouldn't set a precedent.

[onenote]

63. Not even remotely the same thing.

[pnwmom]

71. We don't know what Mueller will discover. If he discovered, for instance, that Russian hackers

who hacked into the election systems actually changed votes, all bets are off.

[onenote]

73. No. They're. Not.

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]

133. The Equal Protection Clause, for one.

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]

135. That's ridiculous.

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]

136. As I've said, it may be bullshit, but the SC has spouted bullshit before,

in the service of a particular aim.

It would all depend on the circumstances, which we don't yet know.

[onenote]

137. Dream away.

But please come back and visit the real world from time to time.

[we can do it]

111. I'm over the bots.

[zipplewrath]

125. Not exactly

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]

126. Of course there was. It was the SCOTUS

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]

47. HRC knows a bit more than you regarding legal accountability etc.

If she entertains that it means she has given it serious study.
It is not just a flamboyant remark.

[AncientGeezer]

114. Except she didn't say what the OP claims....

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]

127. Not on this point

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]

141. uh... read the amendments

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]

144. I agree

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]

110. The system had no idea there would be electronic election manipulation.

[onenote]

113. The "system" knew all about ballot box stuffing and other forms of electoral fraud

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2008/10/stolen_electionsas_american_as_apple_pie.html

[Eliot Rosewater]

78. What Clinton says is irrelevant now?

Not to me, not to democrats.

[LeftInTX]

86. Clinton never said it

I heard the interview

[rock]

88. How much political power would trump have

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]

8. I think she

Should!!

Is there a statute of limitations?

[mythology]

16. There's no legal provision for this and thus no statute of limitations

It's a non-starter. There is no do over.

[Mr. Evil]

49. Always remember, for everything there is a first time.

[longship]

90. Always remember, there is no "throw out the US Constitution" provision in the US Constitution.

Last edited Mon Sep 18, 2017, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)

And I am aghast of anybody who thinks that there is.

[shanny]

99. Amen.

[zipplewrath]

128. Don't tell the 2nd amendment folks that

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]

130. Hopefully a path never taken.

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]

132. We need an amendment

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]

9. Big deal...

...it's been too long, and there's no legal basis in the Constitution to challenge the outcome of a Presidential election.

[seaglass]

12. I must be dumb. I don't get how questioning legitimacy means contesting or a formal challenge. n/t

[Bleacher Creature]

17. I'm just as dumb.

I also don't see how questioning Trump's legitimacy equates to suggesting that there will be a redo.

[jberryhill]

40. No, you are not dumb.

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]

92. Doesn't one of the amendments cover the do-over rule?

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]

98. It's written on the back in invisible ink

[Orrex]

102. Those crafty bastards.

[ProfessorGAC]

134. You Can Read It With A Black Light

How the framers knew a black light would work is beyond me, though? They didn't even have electricity yet!

[jberryhill]

142. Same way they knew people would be using Twitter for Nazi propaganda

[ProfessorGAC]

145. Duh!

I should have figured that out!

[onenote]

67. It doesn't. But that doesn't stop the wishful thinkers from hoping pigs will fly.

[SaschaHM]

13. The article title/premise is wildly misleading.

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]

15. K&R...

[L. Coyote]

19. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll see your golf ball and raise you a nuke.

Link to tweet

[johnp3907]

21. Hellogoodbye.

[7962]

39. Why cant we leave them up long enough for everyone to see. I miss so many!

[groundloop]

76. Damn it, I missed it also.

Too bad there's not a place in DU for posting troll responses so we can have a good laugh.

[R B Garr]

22. This would be awesome! Setting a precedent of accountability. Another avenue

to open the hacking and collusion and put it in the history books.

Nice idea, I really like it.

[msongs]

24. "questioning" is not the same as "contesting". she only comments on "questioning" nt

[samnsara]

36. yes i went back and read her statement and its clearly questioning....

...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]

25. I'm not sure about setting that precedent at this date. Kind of like rubbing a dog's nose in dung

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]

26. won't happen. The Constitution doesn't provide for that I am sorry to say

[we can do it]

108. There was no possibility of electronic hacking when constitution was written.

[still_one]

112. Doesn't matter. You ammend the Constitution then. The only alternative is impeachment,

[onenote]

117. so what? there was the possibility of other means of election fraud

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]

27. Lord in my dreams!

I could wake up from this nightmare!

[ismnotwasm]

28. Nope.

Cillizza has no credibility here. He lives-and loves-- to do this shit.

[melman]

35. Do you think he made it up?

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]

57. Yeah I know what she said

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]

115. Questioning is vastly different than contesting....

[PoliticAverse]

31. "and I have never heard her broach the possibility of a formal challenge of the results." - and...

you still haven't.

[FarPoint]

32. I'm ready if Hillary is ready...

This faux pResident is exhausting and depressing for all America.

[JoeStuckInOH]

33. Contest what? The electors are who votes for the POTUS/VPOTUS.

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]

34. If Mueller proves collusion & treason, we are in uncharted times.

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...

[delisen]

45. Yes.

[bucolic_frolic]

50. It could be very very simple

if enough members of the administration and a few dozen members of Congress are hauled off to jail leaving a Democratic majority

[metalbot]

101. It's not a constitutional crisis at all, even if he finds collusion

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]

38. Chris Cilliza is a shit stirring clown.

[melman]

44. Reporting an actual quote is shit stirring?

[onenote]

69. if the actual quote said she'd "contest" the election, no.

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]

97. onenote explained it to you.

[Vinca]

41. The problem is there is no remedy for this. The election won't be thrown out . . .

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]

42. If the election proves to have been illegitimate, then

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]

93. The election becomes legitimate when the electoral votes are counted

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]

43. This is painfully stupid

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]

56. In 2000 scotus picked for Florida when scotus shut down the recount

[jberryhill]

62. Relevant to what here?

[Fullduplexxx]

68. Relevant to your first statement. Things are the way they are until they aren't.

States run their own elections of the electors,. And they did till scotus picked for Florida.

[onenote]

94. The SCOTUS cited the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in Bush v. Gore

What Constitutional provision would provide the basis for a challenge to Trump's election?

[Fullduplexxx]

129. Idk . I'll leave that to the lawyers to pull something out of their butts like scotus did with

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]

138. well, since Hillary doesn't think there's a way to do it

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]

46. THIS THIS THIS THIS

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]

51. kick

[onenote]

53. questioning the legitimacy of the election and "contesting" it in some formal way are different thin

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]

54. Good

I've fucking had it watching this piece of shit parading around pretending to be President.

[GetRidOfThem]

55. Ain't gonna happen

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]

58. I heard the interview on NPR and Hillary says it is impossible to contest the election

[NurseJackie]

59. I just don't see anything like that happening. It seems highly unlikely to me.

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]

60. Deceptive reporting

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]

66. People here are going to bite on every piece of bullshit that floats by

[onenote]

72. DING DING DING!!

Thank you.

[LeftInTX]

85. I heard the interview a few hours ago and totally agree

[delisen]

139. Questioning the moral legitimacy is where we need to go.

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]

64. I so wish it could happen!

But, alas, I doubt it can. Still, these are insane times, so anything is possible.

[Madam45for2923]

65. chris cillizza poops on the floor me: dude clean it up chris: youre just goading me me: nah dude it

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]

75. Yippee!

Hoping upon hope!

[spanone]

77. everyone who voted should be cheering loudly. we need to know our elections are legitimate.

[triron]

81. Some of us.

Most just want to pretend.

[spanone]

82. Hillary got 3 million more votes than the trumpets.....Most of us!

[triron]

83. Maybe more.

How many votes were switched or not counted?

[yellowcanine]

79. She did not "float the possibility of contesting the election."

She said she would not rule out "questioning the legitimacy of the election." It is not the same thing.

[sarisataka]

80. I do not see anywhere Mrs. Clinton

Used the word contest

I believe that is intentional. She is smart enough to understand how the Constitution works.

[longship]

91. When will people learn: Chris Cilizza is a fucking brain dead idiot.

[Tatiana]

95. I love this. I hope every roach in the WH is squirming, including the Trump crime family.

Listening to Hillary's interviews, she is clearly frightened at the direction our country has taken.

[Bettie]

96. Even if she wouldn't, the

idea of the clowns in the WH freaking out is the best mental image of the day.

[LostinRed]

103. Would be interesting to see the Supreme Court will rule in favor of trump

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]

116. No judge is going to be kicked off the bench. The Senate seats the SCOTUS nominees.

Hillary didn't say what the OP said she said.

[peggysue2]

104. Baloney!

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]

106. even if she wants to

there is no mechanism for a do-over in the Constitution.

So getting all fired up about the possibility is pointless.

[Initech]

119. I'm worried with SCOTUS stacked in the GOP's favor it would be another Bush V Gore.

Let's hoping it's not. Fuck Trump.

[onenote]

123. Don't worry. If a case is brought (it won't) it would lose 9-0 in SCOTUS

What exactly would be the constitutional or statutory provision on which the challenge would be based?

[jmg257]

124. Well that will help book sales! Might be time to

Sell my Madam President mags!

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

140. The time to challenge the election was

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.

[spanone]

143. good for her.....trump would have been in the courts for 8 months now if he had lost.