Ironic that Clinton Campaign Looking to Challenge Election Results after Attempting to Bait Trump into Automatic Acceptance of Results

If there is any consistency within the left liberal progressive Democrat community, it is their propensity for hypocrisy and irony.  Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) would love nothing better than for the government to ban all guns from civilian hands, trampling the 2nd Amendment into the ground, while supporting that she, other members of government, the military, and police all keep their inherent right to bear arms and carry a firearm on their person.  All the while, left liberal progressive Democrats claim, “we are not wanting gun bans or gun confiscation, just common sense gun control laws.”  In other words, they want gun control laws like what was just passed in California.

On a similar note, Hillary Clinton tried to get Donald Trump to commit to accepting the outcome of the national popular vote when it came to the 2016 election of the next president.  Trump gave a “we’ll see” response, which Clinton bashed since she thought her win was secured.  But, Trump won the needed electoral votes which elect the president.  Now, Hillary Clinton Campaign manager John Podesta is meeting with groups urging the campaign to challenge the election outcome.

According to Breitbart, several sources revealed that Podesta held meetings on November 22 with groups who claimed to have found “irregularities” in some of the counties where Trump won the electoral votes of the State.

Reports from several sources revealed on November 22 that Clinton campaign chief John Podesta was taking meetings with a group claiming it had discovered “irregularities” in several counties of some of the states that Trump won.

Apparently a “group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” met with Podesta to express their belief that they “found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked,” according to New York magazine

The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.

The irony is not lost on those who heard throughout the election cycle from Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama, the election machines were not “rigged,” there was no voting abnormalities, and machines could not be “manipulated or hacked.”  Since Trump won the needed electoral votes, groups that denied any vote tampering are now claiming possible manipulation or hacking in the States of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  However, in order to “overturn the election, these challenges would have to succeed in multiple counties and multiple states all at the same time to swing the Electoral College to Clinton, so it certainly seems like a desperate long shot.”

As Breitbart continued:

It is such a long shot that even the left’s favorite numbers guru, Nate Silver, essentially dismissed the effort.

 

Another Nate, Nate Cohn of The New York Times, called this forlorn hope incredibly “weak.”

In a not so surprising response, Twitter erupted with left liberal exuberance over the possibility of a challenge to the election results.  The tweets are rather revealing of the hypocrisy of the left who ripped Trump for not affirming his intention to accept election results.

 

This is the same left liberal progressive Democrat base that has bombarded members of the electoral college in various States to change their vote to Clinton instead of Trump.  Some electors have even received death threats as well as very aggressive toned emails.  It is ironic that these “groups” have zero problem with 3 million illegal alien invaders, non-citizens, voting in the election, which is against the law and most likely were votes for Clinton.  Yet, these same groups want to challenge the election results under the claims of “irregularities” that include possible “manipulation and hacking.”  However, the national popular vote does not determine the election of the president and vice-president.

The Constitution for the united States of America, 12th Amendment, outlines the process of the election of the president and vice-president by electoral college, not the national popular vote.  And, this process has been subverted by “policy” that electors only choose whomever becomes the Republican or Democratic presidential candidate;  and, those electoral votes follow the results of the national popular vote winner in the various States..  But, that is not how the Twelfth Amendment process of election of the president by electoral college actually works.  So, even if a majority of the population in a State voted for Trump, the electors could reasonably change their vote to Clinton, or any other individual who bid for either party candidacy or a member of any other party who bid for inclusion on the ballot.

It is unlikely that the electoral college would elect a president who was not on the ballot and a member of either the Democrat or Republican party since that has been the “policy” for many decades.  Those who support the Constitution do not have any problem with the electoral college election of the president and vice-president, nor Senators being chosen by the States.  This constitutional process keeps the federal government beholden and accountable to the sovereign States, instead of the States bowing to the creature — the federal government.

Left liberal progressive Democrats, and many Republicans as well, have little regard for the Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment process for election of the president and vice-president, preferring a national popular vote since large metropolitan areas would control the election of the president.  Moreover, both parties can “challenge” the results of the national popular vote for whatever reason to influence electoral college votes should results appear “irregular.”  There may or may not be “irregularities” in the vote.  But, if the challenge is based on this reason, then the 3 million votes cast by illegal alien invaders should be subtracted from the candidates’ totals.  However, the left liberal progressive Democrats have no problem with “illegal” cast votes, just irregularities in certain counties in certain states.

The Clinton campaign, along with the lamestream enemedia, lambasted Donald Trump because he would not commit to accepting the outcome of the election results, meaning the national popular vote.  While the media erupted into declaring Trump the “destroyer of democracy,” the Clinton campaign insisted that any challenge to the election results was contrary to our political tradition.  The left liberal progressive Democrat voter base has little regard for the law.  Why would anyone think they would uphold some obscure “political tradition?”

Advertisements

About Suzanne Hamner

Former professional Registered Nurse turned writer; equal opportunity criticizer; politically incorrect conservative;
This entry was posted in Constitution, General, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.