14276 members
Login

Hillary Clinton Will Not Rule Out Challenging Legitimacy Of 2016 Election

Sec. Hillary Clinton will not rule out challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 election if Russian support for the Trump campaign is deeper than already publicly reported according to NPR.

Sec. Hillary Clinton will not rule out challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 election if Russian support for the Trump campaign is deeper than already publicly reported according to NPR.

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?

Sec. Hillary Clinton: No. I would not. I would say —

Terry Gross: You're not going to rule it out.

Sec. Hillary Clinton: No, I wouldn't rule it out.

Terry Gross: So what are the means, like, this is totally unprecedented in every way —

Sec. Hillary Clinton: It is.

Terry Gross: What would be the means to challenge it, if you thought it should be challenged?

Sec. Hillary Clinton: 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. 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 protégées.

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 re-do 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.

She has a point; a couple actually.

1

If there is foreign intervention that can be proven, there must be a means of redress provided, even though there is no legal provision on the books at present. As for abolition of the Electoral College, I'm all for it, but a more fruitful approach, directed toward the Supreme Court originalists, would be that the intent behind the Electoral College is clearly laid out in Hamilton's Federalist 68. The Electoral College was to be a deliberative body; not the political rubber stamp to which it has degenerated, and thus flouted.

1

There are about 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution that are required to make the structure of our democracy better for the people. I don't foresee this happening without a massive sustained effort. There are too many powerful interests who enjoy the status quo as it is, particularly the Republican party and their owners.

false