Clinton: 'Nobody's Talking About Contesting The Election, Including Me'

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo



By NICOLE LAFOND Published SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 8:52 AM

In an interview earlier this week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t “rule out” challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 election, but clarified Tuesday she has no plans to “contest” the election, regardless of the outcome of the investigation into Russian meddling in the election.

“Nobody is talking about contesting the election, including me. No,” she said appearing on the “The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert. “Because there is no mechanism. But I think legitimacy is rooted in what comes out of these investigations because if there is evidence of communication, coordination, whatever it might be, then I think millions of Americans would say, ‘Well, those raise questions about legitimacy.”

She said besides voting in the next election, there’s not much else she or anyone else could do besides ask questions about President Donald Trump’s legitimacy as an elected leader. “What you do is mobilize politically to express your will and a rejection of that kind of Russian involvement in and coordination, at the ballot box,” she said. “That is where we settle our political difference and that’s where it should be.”

She said the latest revelations about Facebook’s targeted advertisement sales and potential Russian involvement in that process has been enough to push her to “sound the alarm.”

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-nobodys-contesting-election

---

[bettyellen]

1. Clizzia (sp) is a shit stirring jerk, who owes us all an apology.

[onenote]

17. yes he does.

and the folks who insist that there is a mechanism should listen to Hillary.

[NurseJackie]

2. "Because there is no mechanism." --- That's the thing. Sad but true.

[NastyRiffraff]

3. Unlike Dump, she respects the Constitution

While I wish the election COULD be contested, I have to respect her for that.

[NurseJackie]

4. Watching the 2nd video... it made me cry...

... listening to Hillary's critique of Trumps UN speech and telling us she WOULD HAVE said just pushed me over the edge. Tears of sorrow. Tears of fear. Tears of regret. Tears of anger.

The wine at the end was a nice touch. She's still disappointed, obviously... but she's accepted reality and seems to be at peace with herself.

I admire her so much. So so very much!

[MontanaMama]

8. I started reading her book

yesterday while waiting for my kiddo at his piano lesson. I sobbed for 20 minutes. Just the Forward in her book took me back to November 8th. I felt shattered all over again. But reading her words and hearing her describe her own shattering gave me pause. I don't know how she survived it. I'm still not sure the rest of us will.

[Justice]

39. The book is remarkable and will help in the healing. It also helps gear us up to make sure doesn't

happen again. I read the Time piece today in the dentist's office where Clinton says don't let what happened to her stop other women from running. She is assuming her place in history, knowing that the women who run for office now will remember what Hillary did for women.

[ananda]

5. Oh dear ..

Somebody got to her and made her change her mind.

And I was so hoping ...

[leftofcool]

7. No one got to Hillary. She's just classy and abides by the Constitution.

[ananda]

9. I was referring to the news a couple of days ago ..

.. when she said she would contest.

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Except that isn't what she said.

At least not from what I have heard her say or in the reports about what she's said that I have read. I have seen people interpreting her words to mean "contest" when she never used that technical term at all. I gather she is using this interview to correct the misinterpretation.

[onenote]

18. You're referring to a lie.

She never said she would consider contesting the election. She said exactly what she repeated on Colbert.

Here's the earlier interview:

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.

This was posted here on DU a number of times, but presumably you didn't see those posts.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Obviously, yes... I was with Hillary when she said she wouldn't "rule out" challenging

dipshit's presidency. So, all of a sudden, now she's ruling it out... I don't get the walk back... why?

[onenote]

41. when did say she wouldn't rule out "challenging" Trump's presidency?

Hard for her to 'walk back' something she never said.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. This... Hillary's own words:

From the 9/18 Politico article, entitled "Clinton won't rule out challenging legitimacy of 2016 election":

Gross quickly returned to her initial question, asking if Clinton would “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?”

“No. I would not,” Clinton said.

Gross followed up again, replying “you’re not going to rule it out.” "No, I wouldn’t rule it out," Clinton said.

Questioning, challenging... same difference as the Politico article points out.

Indeed, Hillary SHOULD question/challenge the Fuhrer-in-Chief's ligitimacy as President... I would fully support her in doing so and so wish she wouldn't back down.

Other elections have been overturned on the basis of fraud... why not this one?!

[onenote]

46. And here are the rest of Hillary's words

Last edited Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:10 PM - Edit history (2)

Not the misleading partial report you are relying on:

GROSS: Democrats have said that they think there was Russian interference in the election, but that they're not challenging the results of the election. As more and more information comes out about the depth of Russia's interference in the election, do you think, at some point, that it would be legitimate to challenge the legitimacy of the election?

CLINTON: I don't know if there's any legal constitutional way to do that. I think you can raise questions. In fact, 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. And there are examples during the campaign when he did just that, like when he called publicly on Russia to hack my personal emails.

****
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.

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

CLINTON: It is.

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

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.

By the way, as Clinton herself makes clear, questioning and challenging are two different things. If you still don't think so, consider the following: After the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Bush in 2000, there was no way to challenge that decision. But the fact it couldn't be challenged did not, and has not, stopped many of us from continuing to "question the legitimacy" of Bush's "win" in 2000.

[ananda]

47. Somebody got to her and changed her mind.

I don't get it either.

She wrote her book; she came out strong and swinging ..

and now this.

Arggghhh

[leftofcool]

6. Classy as always

She should have been our President. But, but, her speeches to Goldman Sachs, the Clinton Foundation and blah, blah, blah.

[sarisataka]

10. I knew she was smart...

And never said what so many people heard

[delisen]

11. Clintons statements on legitimacy are revolutionary.

I think many media commentators will be slow to realize the revolutionary nature of her statements

As the investigations continue, and more is learned it is likely that millions of us will question the legitimacy of Donald Trump's presidency

If the evidence is there, facing the fact that we have an illegitimate presidency is going to be the responsible position for citizens to take. That is the first step in dealing with the crisis.

After that, we will be in uncharted territory, although the experience of other countries may be instructive. Countries which have had democratic institutions, lost them to authoritarianism, and then regained them.

There were many who questioned G W Bush's legitimacy but that ended with the attack on the U.S.

Wa-mongering may well be an avenue taken by an illegitimate president to cut off the questioning of his legitimacy.

[FakeNoose]

20. If it were to happen (and it won't)

If the Supreme Court were to declare the 2016 election illegitimate, it means that Obama is still our President.
They won't automatically award the Presidency to Clinton, it goes back to Obama.

I believe if that were to happen we'd have Civil War break out, and that's why they'll never do it.

Our strategy has to be - complete the investigation, bring an impeachment vote/trial to Congress. Cheeto already knows he's guilty and he'll be impeached, so he's probably going to resign before that happens (just like Nixon.) If he doesn't resign then there will be an impeachment hearing/trial and he'll be convicted and removed from office.

This procedure is already in place through the Constitution and by way of established precedent. We need to stick with that.

[zipplewrath]

23. They can't

The SC has no legal or constitutional basis for "declaring the 2016 election illegitimate". They don't have that authority. 1st of all, elections are run by states. Elections elect Electors and each state establishes who those electors are. The SC, even in Gore, did not dispute the states right to determine their own electors. They only stated how the votes could be counted. Only the congress, at the time of accepting the report of the EC, can "undo" an election. They basically do that by deciding to elect SOMEONE ELSE president. But once that is done, it is done and even they don't have the power to undo it. And the SC can't "award" the presidency to anyone., Succession is clearly outlined in the constitution (and amendments) and the SC has absolutely no role at all. And if they tried, the Senate would potentially impeach the lot of them.

[FakeNoose]

32. Thanks

Let's just get through the next year. Things are gonna get better!

[karynnj]

43. Thank you for spelling all of this out

It shows why it is nearly impossible to overturn any state's results if fraud were involved. Simple recounts can happen, but there is no mechanism to redo a suspect vote. The state's must choose electors by December. The Constitution gives that responsibility to the states.

[zipplewrath]

44. It's what worries me about a popular vote

Imagine a whole "Florida/Hanging Chad" fiasco on a national level. One of the things that amazed me in all of insanity in the 2000 election was that the state had been essentially "throwing out" literally hundreds of thousands of ballots every election cycle because of "spoiled ballots" and no one thought to do anything about it. Each state has different ways of running elections and one might be appalled at how many have regular "irregularities".

Trumps elections fraud committee aside, we really need a national look at how states are running their elections. There is far too much shenanigans going on and it is long past time that we address the flaws in the system. And I'm really talking about the simpler things like registration and intimidation. There's alot about how we run elections beyond electronic voting and hacked servers. We run really bad elections in many places. I've seen good improvements, but they are slow in coming.

[karynnj]

45. Before 2004, in the wake of 2003, Jimmy Carter was asked if he could observe the US election

Last edited Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)

His answer then was that the way that most states ran the election did not meet the basic standards they required in third world nations. We need a system where if something is questioned there is a way to go back to the ballots cast.

One question that would have to be answered is whether the entire country would have to be recounted if one state - like Florida 2000 looked weird. As it was, there were many other problems with Florida - notably the felons list that included black NON FELONS. In fact, the felons list, created by a Texas company hired by Katherine Harris, who was part of B/C and worked for Jeb Bush itself was a clear example of cheating -- and one county alerted the state that it had errors before the election.

Going to a national popular vote would completely change elections. Candidates would not go to every moderate size town in Ohio and ignore LA, NYC and Boston. This would totally advantage us. Imagine huge campaign rallies in Central Park, the Boston Commons etc. It would take some power from the media as more people would actually see the candidate in person. (I realized how much the media filtered when people here and on DU were stunned that the Kerrys wrote a book on the environment and did a book tour in 2007. Yet, having watched the campaign on CSPAN, I saw the environment/climate change/clean energy segment of his speech in every speech. )

Think of people - in every election - who spoke of having the liberty to cast a "protest" vote or not vote because their state was dark blue. Now, their vote matters as much as that of a currently highly courted swing state vote. I never got the point of Republicans who showed a map of the country showing the counties in which they got the majority. They did cover the map red, but they colored a lot of land where almost no one lived. The country is a country of PEOPLE, not acres of land.



I

[FarPoint]

12. There were talks and 💰 donations..

Jill Stein burned such momentum with her scam to contest Election.

[padfun]

13. Express our will at the ballot box?

The Dems are going to lose another election because the Republicans will cheat and steal whatever they can to win. Win at all costs, including the downfall of our country. And the Dems will go along with it in the name of the constitution.

I don't think voting alone will solve these illegitimate questions. We need to rat out and convict. We need to shine a light on the dirtiness and I don't think we have been doing that effectively. 2000 and 2004 are examples. After those elections, we continued to use electronic machines with no accountability. So voting on those wont change things for Dems. We need to stop all electronic machines until we can make sure they aren't hackable.

I truly don't believe my vote counts anymore. I have no confidence in our election system.

[NurseJackie]

15. "I truly don't believe my vote counts anymore." So you'll be staying home then?

I truly don't believe my vote counts anymore. I have no confidence in our election system.

So you'll be staying home then? Sounds like you're giving up... and just conceding everything before the battle begins.

[broadcaster90210]

16. Unfortunate

These sre desperate times. If it was "rigged"then "that sucks, just vote" isn't enough.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. I see why some people might feel that way, but, if we give up and give in, the enemy wins for sure.

[Marthe48]

19. I'd be happy to see the U.S. set a precedent

Before we are skinhead and tiki-torched into the Stone Age. Hopefully before any bombs are dropped. We can't be sure trump would drop anything on NK. He couldn't find his fat ass with both hands and a map, let alone a country. He couldn't find Earth on a globe.

[Odoreida]

21. So much fake news around ...

Good on Hillary for squashing this one.

[Calista241]

22. The official recourse for contesting the election is the electoral college. n/t

[SoCalMusicLover]

24. Doesn't Matter One Bit How You Win....JUST WIN

Do I need any more proof that elections are worthless? Essentially, this is more proof that it does not matter if you cheat or commit treason in order to win the election. What matters is the election returns on election night.

That makes 3 elections in 16 years, where fraud by the repubs, resulted in Presidential victories for their party.

It took the Supreme Court ruling where they have no business being involved, to install Shrub back in 2000. It took Ken Blackwell, and his "machines" in 2004, giving Shrub a re-election win, even though his favorability was below 50%.

And now it appears that collusion with Russia probably swung the election away from an almost certain Democratic victory. Even if that were to come out, it is comforting to know that nothing would or could come of it.

So why are elections worthless? Because there is no reason for these frauds not to continue in the future. Perhaps we should admire repubs, since they know that it pays to do whatever it takes to win, regardless of the legality or ethical standard. Worry about any inconsequential consequences later, what matters is the victory.

[onenote]

25. So I guess the elections in 2008 and 2012 were worthless

And all us saps that came out to vote should've stayed home.

[SoCalMusicLover]

30. By All Means Vote

Just don't continue to believe that elections are always legitimate. If there is a means to cheat and fix them, they will do so.

Obama was going to win so overwhelmingly both times, that there was no possibility they could get away with any scheme. But KKK Rove's antics on election night 2012, lead me to believe they may have tried anyways.

[joeybee12]

26. She's wrong because I sure am talking about it. Nt

[onenote]

35. Right. A lot of folks are talking about. And concluding there isn't anyway to do it

[C_U_L8R]

29. Changing my screen name to Nobody.

[democratisphere]

31. The rest of US will contest the election as soon as the whole truth is known.

Count on it!

[lunamagica]

33. Oh, I hope so!

[onenote]

34. and exactly how do the "rest of us" plan on "contesting" the election?

[democratisphere]

36. THE FORCE will be with US.

[onenote]

37. Got it. It's science fiction.

[democratisphere]

38. We're already living science fiction.

Time to get back to political reality; pre-russian overthrow of our government.

[StevieM]

40. There is nothing to contest. She had the election won and then Comey cancelled it and

replaced it with an undemocratic fraudulent process.