Hillary Clinton suggests that 2016 election may not be legitimate

[NewYorkExpress]

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/551217204/hillary-clinton-says-shes-optimistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive

Hillary Clinton told NPR's Terry Gross, that she would not rule out challenging the legitimacy of President Trump's election in 2016 if more facts about Russia's involvement in the election came out.

[GeorgiaModerate]

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/551217204/hillary-clinton-says-shes-optimistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive

Hillary Clinton told NPR's Terry Gross, that she would not rule out challenging the legitimacy of President Trump's election in 2016 if more facts about Russia's involvement in the election came out.

Countdown to Trump's next tweet...3...2...1...

[Rookie Yinzer]

Cute but I doubt American government will fully admit that they were compromised in similar fashion to a third world country. No vote tallies were changed--- people have made misinformed decisions before voting for hundreds of years.

[Reluctant Republican]

I'm probably reading too much into this, but I wonder if this is her way of leaving the door open for another run. I know she's given pretty strong denials, but I seem to recall she did in 2012 or so as well.

I am biased though, in that I think it would be fascinating to see.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

[GeorgiaModerate]

Cute but I doubt American government will fully admit that they were compromised in similar fashion to a third world country. No vote tallies were changed--- people have made misinformed decisions before voting for hundreds of years.

This does raise a fascinating question though: what would happen if there was clear evidence that an American presidential election had vote totals manipulated by an outside party?  (To be clear: I do NOT think that happened in 2016.)  What would Congress do?  What could they do after the President was inaugurated, other than impeachment?

[TheSaint250]

Cute but I doubt American government will fully admit that they were compromised in similar fashion to a third world country. No vote tallies were changed--- people have made misinformed decisions before voting for hundreds of years.

This does raise a fascinating question though: what would happen if there was clear evidence that an American presidential election had vote totals manipulated by an outside party?  (To be clear: I do NOT think that happened in 2016.)  What would Congress do?  What could they do after the President was inaugurated, other than impeachment?

If the president was not involved with the hacks, I don't think impeachment would necessarily be appropriate in that case (of course, if he/she were, then definitely).

You're right: what would happen?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

[7,052,770]

She's not wrong, but she should let herself be vindicated by history rather than try to sue or whatever.

[JA]

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

What a loose cannon. Clearly an emotionally unstable loon proving she was not fit for the top office.

[Green Line]

Who knows.  Let's see.  An investigation would be worthwhile, if only to satisfy Hillary.

[Inmate Trump]

Well let's see.

There is no doubt that Russian interference occurred.

There is no doubt that Russia's goal was to elect Donald Trump and to instill uncertainty in our elections and our government.  There is little doubt they had/have the means to influence our election.

There is no doubt that Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million votes.

It is also oddly suspicious that polling in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (not to mention, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Florida) consistently indicated a Clinton win, and that election day was opposite of the polling data. Sure, things happen and polls are not always accurate.  But every poll?  And every political analyst?  And in three traditionally Democratic states?  States that haven't voted for a Republican in 30 or more years, and showed little chance of doing so in 2016?  I'm not saying I believe individual votes were tampered with (although that could be a possibility, who knows--not I, and not you), I'm just saying that it's odd these three states went to Trump, of all people, and especially when virtually every pollster and analyst had data predicting otherwise.  Also, it's important to note that elections can be rigged, voting machines can be hacked, and individual votes can be altered.

Clinton's suggestion is certainly possible; and while the electoral college, without hacking, makes the election legitimate, it does not make Trump's presidency the will of the people--the will of the people was for Hillary to be president.

[GGover]

[DrScholl]

I love how Clinton is legitimately upsetting her detractors even though she isn't even President. Most people who would question the election if it turned out Russian interference went deeper than anyone ever thought, which is what her statement was about. Not once did she say that the election was not legitimate, but of course everyone is insistent on believing that she's trying to steal the presidency from Trump. Give me a break.

Why doesn't Trump go away? His approvals are low, he hasn't gotten anything done and yet he has not resigned. Seems to me he is the real problem, not private Citizen Clinton.

[Technocracy Timmy]

If Hillary Clinton has to go away after she won the popular vote then Bernie Sanders has to go away after losing the nomination by millions of votes and by hundreds of delegates.

It's only fair.

[Horus]

[Mr. Reactionary]

If it’s a legitimate election, the body politic has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.

[NewYorkExpress]

If it’s a legitimate election, the body politic has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.

You know, comparing elections to rape, may not be a good idea?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

If Robert Mueller concludes that Russians did interfere with the election, then we should all support Hillary's challenge. Period.

[GeorgiaModerate]

If Robert Mueller concludes that Russians did interfere with the election, then we should all support Hillary's challenge. Period.

And as I asked earlier in the thread: what form would such a challenge take?  Once the President has been inaugurated, impeachment and conviction by Congress is the only constitutional mechanism to remove him/her.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

If Robert Mueller concludes that Russians did interfere with the election, then we should all support Hillary's challenge. Period.

And as I asked earlier in the thread: what form would such a challenge take?  Once the President has been inaugurated, impeachment and conviction by Congress is the only constitutional mechanism to remove him/her.

Technically, according to my professor, the SCOTUS does have power over the election results, a powerful precedent that was granted to them in the 2004 case Bush v. Gore. All that would need to be done is that either Hillary or Mueller... or both, is to challenge the results. That's all she told me. I don't know if they have to start off suing in the individual states where the hacking was most prevalent.

[NewYorkExpress]

If Robert Mueller concludes that Russians did interfere with the election, then we should all support Hillary's challenge. Period.

And as I asked earlier in the thread: what form would such a challenge take?  Once the President has been inaugurated, impeachment and conviction by Congress is the only constitutional mechanism to remove him/her.

Technically, according to my professor, the SCOTUS does have power over the election results, a powerful precedent that was granted to them in the 2004 case Bush v. Gore. All that would need to be done is that either Hillary or Mueller... or both, is to challenge the results. That's all she told me. I don't know if they have to start off suing in the individual states where the hacking was most prevalent.

And given the SCOTUS's alignment 4-4 with Kennedy as the swing vote, it's likely Trump would prevail in such a scenario (unless Kennedy or Roberts has a complete change of heart).

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Cute but I doubt American government will fully admit that they were compromised in similar fashion to a third world country. No vote tallies were changed--- people have made misinformed decisions before voting for hundreds of years.

Actually, vote tallies were changed, and the vote tallies were changed from a situation where Hillary Clinton won the Electoral College 334-204 to a situation where Donald Trump won the Electoral College 305-233.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Cute but I doubt American government will fully admit that they were compromised in similar fashion to a third world country. No vote tallies were changed--- people have made misinformed decisions before voting for hundreds of years.

Actually, vote tallies were changed, and the vote tallies were changed from a situation where Hillary Clinton won the Electoral College 334-204 to a situation where Donald Trump won the Electoral College 305-233.

Really? You don't say ...