Hillary Clinton May Challenge Legitimacy Of Presidential Election
The US presidential election took place nearly one year ago, but to Hillary Clinton it may as well never have ended.
In an interview with NPR, the former first lady said that “if Russian interference turned out to be deeper than previously thought” she wouldn’t rule out challenging its legitimacy or the outcome.
“No, I wouldn’t rule it out,” she said.
Still, even the defeated Democratic nominee admitted that she does not “believe” there is a means to officially challenge the election’s outcome. “I don’t know if there’s any legal, constitutional way to do that,” Clinton said.
“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. “I think you can raise questions.”
Your sure can, especially if it means staying in the public eye day after day reminding the world how your loss was everyone else’s fault but your own, to the point where even her fellow Democrats have said enough. Monday’s interview is the latest in a whirlwind of appearances the former first lady has given as she promotes her book, “What Happened.”
In addition to Russia, over the past week, she’s continued to blame James Comey, Bernard Sanders and others for her defeat, and she’s also doubled down on her call to end the Electoral College.
None of this is new: Hillary has repeatedly blamed Russia’s efforts to intervene in last year’s election for her loss to Donald Trump, but her latest comments reflect the depth of her frustration with the Kremlin’s efforts which apparently were channeled by Trump himself. She charged that the president knew the Russians were trying to sabotage her campaign, but that it’s unclear if he can be held accountable at this point.
“[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.”
Clinton also said she would have reacted differently than Trump did and established an “independent commission with subpoena power” to probe it.
“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,” she said. “Even though it might’ve advantaged me, I would’ve said, ‘We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.’” She probably meant disadvantaged.
She then proceeded to psychoanalyze Trump, saying that “I think part of the reason Trump behaves the way he behaves is that he is a walking example of projection. Whatever he’s doing and whatever he thinks is happening he will accuse somebody else of“, she concluded without a trace of irony.
Well, even if Hillary fails to challenge Trump over Putin’s unprecedented hacking of millions of middle-class Americans, she can always find comfort in the stupendous, fantastic, if just a little fabricated rating of her book on Amazon, which as of today has 4.8 completely unhacked stars out of 5… with Jeff Bezos’ sincerest compliments.