Hillary has the right and almost an obligation to say Trump didn't win.

[gulliver]

I'll just say what I assume a lot of people are thinking, hopefully Clinton herself. I am strongly in favor of Hillary Clinton asserting that she won the election.

FACT 1: The election was decided on 39,659 votes spread across three states, barely giving Trump the electoral college votes he needed.

FACT 2: Russian computer hacking and media manipulation attacks were against Hillary Clinton and resulted in steady negative news coverage against her. There is a preponderance of evidence that an intolerable crime was committed by Russia against the United States, and it cost Clinton not just 39,659 votes but probably a lot more.

FACT 3: Trump said, "In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." Mr. Trump has a guilty mind. His lie shows that.

Hillary should not be concerned about airy political "norms" here. There is nothing stopping her from saying she won. There is every reason why she should say she won. She would be protecting real people and real truth in real reality.

Right now, the Republicans are saying that the intelligence report on Russian hacking is politically motivated on the part of the Dems. Right now, the Republicans are saying that Democrats trying to hold Trump's nominees to traditional ethical standards are politically motivated. A pattern is emerging. If we let the Republicans get away with it, they are going to abuse their power and the truth itself without bounds. They are going to hold their heads high when they should be looking at their shoes and glancing over their shoulders for cops, when they should be looking upward to watch for lightning bolts.

Hillary is in a unique position here. Obama can't say she won if she doesn't say it first. Democrats can't say she won if she doesn't. If Hillary Clinton says she won, she puts a harpoon in Trump and his Republicans that they are going to have a hard time getting out. People know truth when they hear it.

Given Trump's debate record with Clinton, I wonder how he would do in a media fight where Clinton has the truth on her side and won't go away. I sure would like to find out how that would go.

[BainsBane]

1. She didn't win

She lost crucial states that decided the electoral college.

What purpose would be served by her dong what you say? It wouldn't stop him from becoming president. That you want to see a media fight is not a reason for her to undermine her credibility for working on issues in the future.

[gulliver]

4. Yeah, she did.

She can couch it in any terms she wants. All she has to do is imply it strongly. It's true, and people will see it. Most people who look at the facts are probably thinking it, including her.

If Trump were humbly acting like someone who had barely won and Republicans were conceding that Russian hacking might have thrown the race to Trump, Hillary wouldn't need to say anything. That's not the case. He and the Republicans are acting like they have a legitimate landslide. They will act accordingly if something isn't done to put them in their place. Hillary is uniquely positioned to do that.

In doing that, by the way, she sets herself up for working on issues in the future. Right now, her credibility stands undermined. The WikiLeaks subterfuge stands. Trump's claims of Hillary's popular vote "loss" to illegal voting stands. Republican denial of the Russian hacking ruining America's election stands. Trump's damned gracious decision not to throw Hillary in jail stands.

Those things were fact checked, determined in her favor by news organizations, and sent down the memory hole.

[Akamai]

82. Other factors in Trump's theft of the election is voter suppression through

cross-check (knocking many, many thousands of voters off the polls -- giving them provisional ballots which where never counted) and voter ID laws which prevented many voters from even coming to the ballot boxes.

Take a look at Greg Palast at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/8/1593581/-The-Crosscheck-Scheme-GOP-removing-Blacks-and-Hispanics-from-Voter-Rolls-in-Battleground-States

"In an on-the-ground report from the battleground state of Ohio, investigative reporter Greg Palast has uncovered the latest in vote suppression tactics led by Republicans that could threaten the integrity of the vote in Ohio and North Carolina. On some polling machines, audit protection functions have been shut off, and African Americans and Hispanics are being scrubbed from the voter rolls through a system called Crosscheck. "It’s a brand-new Jim Crow," Palast says. "Today, on Election Day, they’re not going to use white sheets to keep way black voters. Today, they’re using spreadsheets." . . .

"[Greg Palast explains how, after questions about vote-rigging in Ohio in 2004, they got brand new state of the art voting machines, which take pictures and timestamps of every virtual ballot cast. But the Republicans have turned off all the machines’ security features — and a Republican judge just ruled that it would be too hard for the election workers to point and click to turn them back on again.

"Then Palast covers the Republican war against early voting, and the effects on GOTV efforts in minority communities in Ohio.

"But the biggest fraud in the story is the spreadsheet being shared across 30 Republican run state governments, listing 1/6 of the minority voters in the US, and claiming that 1 million of them are trying to vote twice in different districts. The Republicans did something like this in Florida in 2000 — they found people who had names similar to felons, then struck them from the voter rolls without telling them. State governments appear to have done the same to these million (mostly) minority voters today, for having names similar to voters in other states. Looking at the spreadsheets, you can see that Republicans were hunting for names that sound African American or Hispanic.]"

****************

Greg has warned about these issues repeatedly over the years, since the 2000 Bush Gore election with the theft of the election in Florida by the illegal removal of the votes 10s of thousands of Democratic Voters in that election.

[brooklynite]

119. Hillary Clinton didn't win the Election...

...because the Election she chose to run in isn't based on a national public vote.

She won't say she won.

President Obama won't say she won.

Bernie Sanders won't say she won.

Deal with reality.

[eniwetok]

12. Screw the EC.... Trump is an illegitimate usurper.

Trump has no moral right to be president. He was REJECTED by the People.

HRC better not retire from public life. She should be out there with Sanders uniting the Dems to oppose Trump and the GOP.

[BainsBane]

14. Neera Tanden says

Hillary will be working on issues related to children and families, but she will not run for elected office again. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-new-york-neera-tanden/

[eniwetok]

16. she's on record...

HRC is on record that if she lost, she would fight Trump's agenda. Granted that was on the Between The Ferns show. But no one has better standing to actively lead the resistance.

[BainsBane]

23. What about children and families

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2017, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Suggests that wouldn't be fighting Trump's agenda?

She isn't in congress, so she has no power there. It makes sense she would devote herself to the issue that has been most important to her throughout her life.

She has never been a TV politician. She's the kind who rolls her sleeves up and gets to work. So if you're one of those people who thinks fighting means appearing on TV, you may be disappointed because you won't see her doing that much.

[eniwetok]

56. seriously?

You think HRC's wanting to work on children and family matters covers all the issues Herr Trump and the GOP are planning for their reign of terror?

As for not being in office... she wasn't in office when she ran for president. So does that mean she had no right to forcefully advocate her positions or resist the GOP?

Who else has the moral authority to lead the fight against the GOP but the person who trounced Trump by nearly 3 million votes? Sorry... she was willing to commit herself for at least 4 years as president and you're suggesting she can't do the same to fight the GOP as they seek to dismantle the New Deal and Great Society?

[Hekate]

115. "Who else has the moral authority"? You just finished saying her credibility was all undermined.

Which is it?

I seriously think there are some people who have no idea who she is and what she's done her entire life, but by god she owes them. She allegedly ran her campaign all wrong and now we're going to have a con man in the WH -- but she owes us, by god.

Where is the Great Revolutionary, by the way? He's still in the Senate and has been further embraced by the Democratic Party, of which he is still not a member. Why is he not all over news every day?

[uponit7771]

31. She's not on record saying she'll accept Russian interference. The acceptance was on condition that

... the elections were free and fair not that the Russians would interfere

[Hekate]

114. HRC "better not retire from public life"? My gods, the chutzpah.

[uponit7771]

17. Relative to facts that aren't in dispute regarding Russia and voter suppression we don't know that..

... at minimum we KNOW there's something untoward about this election and that in itself is enough to consider a re-vote

[BainsBane]

25. There isn't going to be a revote

Congress has already certified the EC results. Trump will be president on Jan 20. People need to focus on protecting programs we care about.

[uponit7771]

26. Congress isn't the last word on Benedict Donald being in office, the registrar is on the 19th

... until they record it he's not president

[onenote]

61. what are you talking about? What "registrar"?

The reality is that Trump will become president when he takes the constitutionally-mandated oath of office on January 20. Not a minute before. Not a minute after.

But that doesn't mean that there are any more avenues for changing the outcome of the election under our Constitution and laws. There aren't.

[SlimJimmy]

109. I have made this point here many tmes. A number of people have asked

if I should be be here if I am telling them to move on and pick our fights. For example, I think challenging up to eight cabinet nominations is foolish and will make us look petty. We should, instead, concentrate on those that are the most important, like the EPA, State, and AG positions. Likewise, I think we should concentrate on improving (fixing) the ACA instead of digging in and fighting the repeal tooth and nail. It's a losing battle. Instead we should be offering amendments to the coming legislation that aims to bring costs down while maintaining the core of the act.

Anyway, that's my take.

[BainsBane]

110. I agree.

Denial doesn't help.

[WillowTree]

43. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for a "re-vote". None.

[uponit7771]

44. Yes there is, were promised free and fair elections and this wasn't one by far

[WillowTree]

49. No.......constitutional.......basis.

And not to say that "free and fair elections" aren't crucially important, but are you aware that the words "free" and "fair" do not appear in the constitution or any of the amendments in any context?

No one can force you to accept him as your President and I'd not presume to try. But the election is over. We're not in the third grade and there's not going to be a do-over. Donald Trump is going to be inaugurated on the 20th. Those are facts and whether you accept them as such or not, they're not going to change.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

75. There is no way to have a re-vote

I don't understand how intelligent people can continue to demand something that isn't Constitutionally possible.

[uponit7771]

77. Yes there is, it can be sued for just like everything else in this country. There's no remedy

... constriction outlined in the constitution when there's no free and fair election.

I don't know how this meme has spread here on DU but it starting to sound like FUD no!??!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

87. OK, I'll play

On what grounds would one sue over this election?

[uponit7771]

91. hacking of state and local electoral boards by Russia. The extent of effect is irrelevant that they

... were hacked and mainted access is interference with selection state level ECs.

That's just the intel report,

Silver calculated a 1.2% shift due to voter suppression... 15th amendment there off the top of my head...

there's more but I don't think it'll change anything

[SickOfTheOnePct]

96. As odious as voter suppression is

It was all legal under existing law. Change the laws to stop it from happening again, and ensure that affected voters are provided the resources they need to ensure they are validly registered. That's all for the future, nothing can be done about voter suppression in the election that just occurred.

And yes, some state and local election boards were hacked, but what evidence can you provide to support your claim that the hacking interfered with the electoral votes?

You can't file suit based on the fact that you don't like the outcome of an election - you need to actually have evidence.

[uponit7771]

98. Abridging the right to vote is never legal no matter what the state laws are and the hacks themselve

... are interference and the interference an abridgment ... again... the extent of effect is irrelevant.

Breaking into your home is illegal... whether they took something or not.

[MrPurple]

2. It's not Hillary's role to say she won, wouldn't be effective

It will likely never be provable to what degree Russian/FBI actions or vote count manipulation changed the results in WI/MI/PA. Others need to try to track down if the Trump campaign was complicit with Putin (surely they were, but hard to prove), but Hillary publicly claiming she was robbed doesn't help the Dems.

Obama/Biden/Hillary and others will be needed to call out Trump policies and mobilize people to turn out and vote in the midterms and 2020. Hillary needs to keep her powder dry for future battles.

[BzaDem]

3. What happened to the truth? Hillary isn't going to say it because it is factually false.

The argument about Russia has nothing to do with who won the election. No one has any evidence that Russia affected the accuracy of the count (much less flipped tens of thousands of votes in three states).

She should certainly be upset about how Trump won, but that has nothing to do with whether Trump won.

[gulliver]

5. We need to argue for the truth. She can say it any way she wants.

The fact is that in an uncompromised election, she won. Vote count manipulation is irrelevant here. The vote count manipulation was done pre-election.

[BzaDem]

15. By "pre-election" "vote count manipulation", do you mean "convincing people to vote for a candidate"

Because if so, that is a very strange way of phrasing it.

There was no mythical election in which the emails weren't leaked, and there will never be (even if we replayed this election tomorrow). It is very relevant to what we should do to prevent such leaks in the future, but completely irrelevant to who won the actual election.

[gulliver]

45. What's so unusual about fraud?

The Russians defrauded the American people using information obtained by criminal activity. If that's not apparent, we can go into more detail.

Suppose you were the president of a contracting company and you were trying to get a government contract. But then the Russians hack your email, sift through it to find dirt on you, and send it to the people at the government making the procurement decision. The Russians want someone else to win the contract, maybe because they have more influence on that someone else.

You lose the contract. You don't sue? If you can't sue, you don't take it to the court of public opinion and try the case in the media?

[BzaDem]

64. I'm not sure there would be any cause of action.

There would have to be a statute that explicitly forbids the government from taking into account information it legally received that was obtained illegally by its original source. In the absence of such a statute, general arguments about "fraud" would go nowhere.

Another example would be in the police context. Let's say the police receive information obtained from a private party, where the private party did not obtain the information in accordance with the 4th amendment. That information would be allowed in court, unless the private party was acting as an agent of the police (doing the police's bidding essentially).

Your argument about taking it to the court of public opinion is interesting. I'm not sure it would have much of an effect in either case. Assuming the information was true, would the public really care where the info came from? I doubt it (even if they should). They might care that the other company that won the contract would be more favorable to Russia, but that would be true with or without the hack.

It makes even less sense in the election context. In the election context, the court of public opinion already rendered their verdict. Russia's illegal behavior was mentioned in all three debates and hundreds of times a day in the media. Yet a decisive number of people didn't care. I don't see how telling them that they should have cared would be any more effective than it was the first time.

[uponit7771]

18. What happened to free and fair elections? That didn't happen either and that at the least sides with

... a re-vote period

[BzaDem]

33. How was the election not free and fair?

Political scientists look at whether voters are making an uncoerced free choice, whether their choices are accurately tabulated, and whether the government voluntarily transitions power to the victor.

Putin's interference was illegal and wrong. That doesn't make the election unfree or unfair. You didn't see Hillary demanding the election be postponed in advance, despite her (and everyone's) full knowledge of Russian involvement. (She pointed it out in all three debates.)

These attempts to reverse the outcome are only taking place because the people making the attempts saw the outcome, and don't like the result. Fortunately we have a sane political party that is not participating in undermining our electoral process by rejecting its results.

[uponit7771]

34. Really?!!! Wanna OP this question?! ... see what you get. Facts not in dispute: Comey, Voter suppres

.. suppression and Russia.

You wanna really proffer by premise of your question that these things didn't happen?

tia

[BzaDem]

37. I fully acknowledge that all three happened, and that they were likely decisive.

I actually agree that voter supression does affect the fairness of our elections. So perhaps I should rephrase and say "the election was no less free or fair than typical American elections."

As for Comey and Putin, I think both of those were wrong. If Hillary won, she should have fired Comey for his actions, and she should have continued Obama's action against Putin. But neither affected the ability of voters to make the choice they wanted to make. That's different than saying it didn't affect the choice -- of course both affected voters choices, and together they were likely decisive.

One way to see why the election should stand is to game out what would happen if it did not. Say we had a revote. What new information would the voters have that they didn't before? Basically nothing they didn't already know. Russia's involvement was well known for months, and Comey already cleared Hillary before the election.

What you are really upset about (as am I) is that a decisive subset of voters chose to ignore the reality that Putin was involved, and that Comey cleared Hillary. You don't like that voters who were aware of both of those things (or who at least heard of both of those things and chose not to believe them) voted for Trump regardless. But disagreeing with a voter's choice is not a reason to overturn an election.

[uponit7771]

38. Good, that's enough for a claim that this was NOT a free and fair election... period

[BzaDem]

41. If Comey and Putin make it so the election was not a free and fair one, what about Fox News?

Fox News constantly spouts propaganda, much of which is false or deliberately misleading. They have been doing this for many elections. They have a lot of viewers, many of which use Fox as their sole source of information. Fox affected the election far more than Comey or Putin.

So if you want to say that Comey and Putin made the election unfree/unfair, in my view, you would have to say the same about Fox. And perhaps you would have a point! But you would have the same point about every election, and yet you aren't arguing for every election to be overturned.

To me, to define the freeness or fairness of an election in such a broad way is to make the terms meaningless.

[uponit7771]

42. Comey and Russia's actions aren't covered by 1st amendment

[BzaDem]

55. The first amendment applies to Comey's statements and Russia's leaks (but not the hacking).

There's a reason the information could not be censored once it got out.

I agree that the hacking was not covered by the first amendment, and Comey's actions violated long-standing department policy (even if they didn't violate the law). But they had a relatively minor effect compared to much worse effects similar in kind that we all take for granted.

To say that the hacking of information or violating department policy are grounds for overturning an election would require a neutral entity to judge all complaints of this kind. Furthermore, there would be no remedy, because the cat would be out of the bag. This is one reason why such factors are not typically looked at when political scientists judge the freeness and fairness of elections. Revotes sometimes happen in other countries when the results are questionable. I am not aware of any revote due to the exposing of information that the exposer was not legally entitled to obtain.

[uponit7771]

59. They sure don't...Comey was speaking as an agent of the fbi not a regular citizen

[BzaDem]

66. Yes, but he was stating a fact (that the investigation was reopened).

I could imagine a law that forbade him from saying such a fact, and that law would probably be Constitutional (for the reason you state). But there was no such law. Just a departmental policy (which he should be fired for violating). I don't think it would be legal to criminally go after Comey for saying what he said in the absence of a law forbidding him from saying it.

[uponit7771]

68. Irrelevant, his statement of fact as an agent of the FBI isn't covered by the 1st amendment where

.. FAUX news can get bucket naked on TV for Trump if they want.

Nor is Russia's actions covered by the 1st amendment which even itself has limits...

[Alice11111]

79. There is no basis in the Constitution to challenge it.

The US Constitution is an amazing document that has withstood many challenges. However, it is NOT a PERFECT document, as some blind patriots would have us believe. Even RBGinsburg said there are better constitutions. The founders knew it would have to evolve, so they provided for Amendments, interpretations by the courts, and checks and balances. However, given the current RW, not just Republican, but dangerously RW domination of ALL branches of government, there will be no evolution of our Constitution to address it's inherent problems. Our system of checks and balances is broken. Our means of addressing constitutional problems in the courts is comprised, and will objectively become worse. The beginning of the end of our democracy is well underway.

[uponit7771]

86. This is false on its face, consent of the governed is predicated off of free and fair elections

[onenote]

111. Actually, the statement that there is no basis in the Constitution for individuals to challenge

Trump's election is true on its face.

Under the Constitution, the role of counting electoral votes and announcing the winner of the election is conferred on Congress, which has chosen to create a process for members to challenge the certification of particular electors. That process is it --- there is no recourse to the courts under the constitution and any individual trying to challenge the election at this point would lose for lack of standing (just like birthers lost trying to challenge Obama's election) and because the courts would treat this as a "political" question -- a matter conferred on another branch of the government.

The situation is not that far from that presented by impeachment. No individual voter has standing to contest the outcome (in either direction) of a vote impeach in the House or to convict in the Senate and the Supreme Court has indicated that a challenge to impeachment would not be justiciable.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Because she's a woman of integrity? It's the media's job to delegitimize this Russian asset, aka...

the president elect. They seem intent on normalizing this asshole. Since when does legit media follow a serious leader's f**kin' twitter account? They are as responsible for Trump as Putin is. Hillary is the last one who should be out front on this issue. She would only be discounted as a sore loser. Remember the "Sore-Loserman" meme from the 2000's?

[gulliver]

7. The media can't do it. They are trying to do their job, but it isn't working.

The media reports, and people decide. And if the people do nothing, that's it.

The media's job is not to advocate. That is absolutely critical to understand. To counter Trump's assertions of towering legitimacy an advocate must act. And Hillary is about the only one I can see in that position.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. We just disagree.

[gulliver]

11. Looks that way

[uponit7771]

20. Its not the medias job to formally request a re-vote without Russian access to state and local ...

... election assets.

Its not just hacking the DNC

[uponit7771]

24. There's no integrity twisting the facts about Russia interfering with our election. That's enough fo

... for a re-vote

[Generic Brad]

9. Did Al Gore declare victory when he was cheated?

What purpose does it serve to declare a moral victory once the outcome is set in stone? If she were to do what you recommend, the push by Trump's ardent supporters to "lock her up" would rekindle and things would end even worse for her. She is in a very tenuous position. Any attempt by her to delegitimize Trump openly (more than he has done by himself) would only supply the spark he needs to permanently silence his opposition in a blaze of anger. She is reading the room correctly and is responding appropriately.

[eniwetok]

13. HRC's victory gives her standing to lead the opposition to Trump.

Are you suggesting HRC's moral victory doesn't give her the standing to lead the opposition to Trump? What is she to do? Disappear into the wallpaper?

[gulliver]

19. "Moral victory"

It is important that she declare victory, because she won. It needs to be asserted. Having a win stolen from you by manipulating the electorate doesn't mean you didn't win. It does in the conventional sense, but the conventions were exploited by Russian criminal activity. Therefore, we need to take a step up in our thinking and determine who won by what is right.

In that sense, the truth is that she did win and that Trump is illegitimate. Most people will recognize the rightness and justice of that position. We are in an exceptional circumstance.

Al didn't declare victory. But then Bush didn't declare a landslide, threaten to jail Gore, or assert that Gore's popular vote victory was the result of voter crime. This is different. The way the Republicans won "by the rules," was to abuse the rules. Therefore, we need to think about the higher rules.

[uponit7771]

21. The outcome is not set in stone till the 19th

[onenote]

81. Nothing happens Jan 19. Nothing. Nada.

You've got some idea that there is a 'registration' that occurs on the 19th. There isn't any such thing.

And even if there was, Trump becomes president when he takes the oath of office on the 20th. Not before. Not after.

[sarisataka]

10. Hillary is smart enough to not twist the truth.

To win the election required 270 electoral votes. Hence the "Road to 270" strategy. She did not get 270 electoral votes therefore she did not win the election.

We can debate all day the fairness, importance- or lack thereof- of the popular vote, narrowness of victory in swing states... but at the end the result is the same. The candidate receiving 270+ electoral votes is the winner.

[uponit7771]

22. There's no twisting Russia interfered with our election on behalf of McPootyPoot, that's enough for

... a re-vote

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. I've read right here, by people much smarter than myself, that our Constitution makes no provision..

for a "re-vote". Congress would have to amend the Constitution, and since we're in the minority in both houses, I don't see that happening? So aside from a "re-vote", what do you suggest Hillary do about it?

[uponit7771]

28. The fix for the break doesn't have to be outlined in the constitution. That's a distraction, the ..

.... constitution does say we get free and fair elections and this election was far from that.

The fix for the constitution being broken here could be a suite for a revote...

Were are the rich dems who can do such?

[sarisataka]

47. One thing the Constitution

Does not say is that the people vote for President. That cuts the base off the foundation for such a suit.

[uponit7771]

50. red herring, the ec vote is based off state level votes and state level electoral boards were hacke

... hacked per the intel report

another reason this was not a free and fair election

[loyalsister]

69. It also does not say that we have a right to vote at all

There is no affirmative right to vote in the constitution because it is conferred by states.

[uponit7771]

71. Then the suite can be at the state level where it holds even more water under the 15th at....

... best.

BTW ... intimating not having a right to vote under constitution is a RWTP, the use it to say slaves don't have the right to vote etc

why proffer it here?

tia

[loyalsister]

84. It's not a talking point it's simply true

There is no affirmative right to vote. Only restrictions on interfering with it. It's a waste of energy, not to mention intellectually dishonest, to use a talking point about a nonexistent constitutional right in pursuit of a foolish goal.

I believe there are groups which are interested in mobilizing to push a constitutional amendment that does affirm a right to vote.

http://www.fairvote.org/about

[sarisataka]

99. True in most respects

the Constitution only requires the people vote for their Representatives

Article I, Section II, Clause I:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

and Senators

Amendment XVII, which was ratified by the states in 1913:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

The Constitution is silent as to who may vote and subsequent Amendment categorize criteria which may not be used to restrict voting. Though clearly the spirit of the law is to allow as many people to vote in elections as possible, the letter of the law has never affirmed that.

[loyalsister]

103. "The people" is certainly a vague term

Disability and criminal history both can be used to restrict voting.

[WillowTree]

51. The constitution says no such thing.

Honest. You can look for yourself.

[sarisataka]

46. Did they interfere

In the sense of changing vote totals or did they release embarrassing info that may have swayed opinion?

Important difference.

[uponit7771]

48. False bar, their interference is bad enough but on the side of one candidate is already proven

... is another step above that.

Outside actors interference in any way in any degree is not a free and fair election

I agree with sen Klabachar on that point

[loyalsister]

73. What they did as outsiders is business as usual in ordinary campaigns

Voters received information unfavorable to a candidate late in the campaign. Neither Comey nor Assange had any business injecting themselves into the election process. But, the substance is much like the mailer I got right before the election about how my candidate was absent during a number of votes when he was in the general assembly. Sort of true, very distorted, and used in a way that doen't seem fair.
The fact that a Russian hack was the source of the materiel is serious. But leaking and distorting the information at the eleventh hour is business as usual in the ugly spectacle that has become political campaigns in the US.

[uponit7771]

74. This is false on its face, did you read the report about Russia hacking state and local electoral

... boards?

That's not usual at all

Regards

[loyalsister]

85. Do you have uncontrovertable evidence that it changed the election results?

nt

[uponit7771]

88. False bar, they interfered period ... that's not " consent of the governed " the extent of the ...

... interference is irrelevant and another RWTP.

Again, it doesn't matter who's side the interference leans on either but if it leant against the loser that's ever more of a reason for a do over

[loyalsister]

93. do over is what children call for

This is the adult world and it's not going to happen. Throwing a temper tantrum is a legitimate response. Grasping at straws to change the outcome with "evidence" based on a set of subjectively determined assumptions is a wasted effort. People are organizing to resist Trump. That is the best us of energy right now.

[uponit7771]

95. A national election is not a pee wee football league game, label what you'd like this has way more

... consequences than kids losing a game

[loyalsister]

100. That does not preclude having players who act like children

Like, for example, the president elect. Calling on Hillary to challenged this is the response one might come up with if asked "what would Trump do?"
There are a lot of people who know how the next presidency will hurt them and things they care about. Joining with them to hold congress accountable is a feasible mission and starting point.

[uponit7771]

102. For free and fair elections being labeled acting like a child seems small pence. I don't think those

.. who are against hacking the DNC, state and local electoral boards and are against proffering hacked emails for the sake of one candidate care about that labels either.

Comey and voter suppression, even though measurable, aren't in the intel report ...

Sounds like the job of some rich dem...

I'd sure do such if I had the cash

[loyalsister]

107. The hacking and the release of the information are distinct acts

Hacking is a serious violation. The release and twisting of the information is legal and business as usual in campaigns. We do it, they do it. Remember Obama vs. Ryan?
Comey also didn't break the law. Unethical does not always mean illegal. To measure the Comey effect you have to ask a sample size and extrapolate. That might suggest influence, but it cannot be measurable in a way that does not have alternate interpretations.

Voter suppression- again not as easily measurable as one might think. You have to find people who did not vote and ask them why. One uncomfortable discovery could likely be a dislike for both presidential candidates. Loyalists don't understand that a 3 million vote advantage does not mask the dissatisfaction with the choices for the 2016 election.
On the other hand, voter supression can be addressed. We need new election laws to prevent and reverse barriers the GOP keeps building.

Resistance!!
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/

[Hekate]

116. I can't keep up with your assertions about the Constitution. Would you please cite...

...chapter and verse so we know where you are getting all this from? And then immediately downthread you imply the Constitution doesn't matter because...something.

Any help appreciated.

[bowens43]

29. She lost. Let it go.

[uponit7771]

30. No, we'll never ever let this go... she didn't lose with a free and fair election, there's no need

... accept something this untoward.

We can proffer a lawsuit to force a free and fair election; free and fair is something outlined in the constitution

[onenote]

53. Where in the Constitution does it create a legal right to a "free and fair" election?

Without doubt, the goal of having free and fair elections are implicit in any democratic system. But the means of achieving that goal are, in the case of the US, specified in the Constitution and by statute. There was a means to challenge the election as specified in the Constitution and statute. It wasn't pursued. As far as the law is considered, that's the end of it.

[eniwetok]

60. that doesn't preclude HRC fighting against the GOP as a private citizen....

And if ANYONE has a right to make the case for abolishing the EC, it's HRC.

[WillowTree]

58. Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true.

So I'll keep saying this.............The constitution doesn't refer to "free and fair" in reference to anything whatsoever, including elections.

[uponit7771]

62. the reference is not literal.... even trumpers know this

[onenote]

63. It's also not something that one can take to court

The Constitution and the laws of the land specify how one can challenge the results of an election. That process is over. No court can or would consider stepping in when Congress, having been given the means, chose not to use them.

[uponit7771]

65. A constitutional right is something that can be taken to court and the registration of McPootyPoot

... isn't finalized yet.

That happens on the 19th

[onenote]

67. What do you think happens on the 19th?

And to the extent that there is a "constitutional right" to a "free and fair election" the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant to the constitution specify how that right is to be enforced. It's not even a close call that the courts would refuse to hear such a case, even assuming you could make a case for standing (which you couldn't).

Amateur lawyering usually produces the wrong answer. As it has with your proposal.

[uponit7771]

70. Registration of Benedict Donald as president, before then he's a regular citizen of the US

[onenote]

76. I don't know where you get the idea that something is going to happen on the 19th

Because nothing is.

Really. Nothing. There is no "registration" of the president-elect as president. There is the counting of the electors by a joint session (which occurred on January 6) and there will be the giving of the oath of office on the 20th. Trump will become president when he takes the oath. Not a minute before. Not a minute after.

[uponit7771]

80. I don't, that's your strawman

[onenote]

83. You've mentioned the 19th three or four times in this thread

You apparently thought it was significant.
And now you are claiming you didn't?

It's okay to admit you were wrong.

[onenote]

113. Crickets.

[Hekate]

117. Please cite where in the Constitution "free and fair election" by all individual citizens is stated.

The Founders feared mobocracy, and put obstacles in the way of direct democracy for that reason. If I Understand correctly, we elect the Electoral College, and if that fails it goes to the House of Representatives. That is as much of a do-over as is provided for, and that is not a do-over with our individual votes.

That may have seemed like a good idea in 1780 or whenever, but it has led to the predicament we are now in.

It sucks badly, but THAT is what is in the Constitution. THAT.

But as I've requested already, I'd love to be able to read what it is you think you are reading there. Thanks in advance.

[gulliver]

32. Nope. We need to take Trump to court.

...the court of public opinion about what is right and wrong. That court is there and waiting to listen. Trump's been talking to it and lying to it.

I'm not letting it go. Hillary definitely shouldn't. The rules were compromised. People have the right to decide that for themselves.

[uponit7771]

35. We can also take him to the USSC, this election was also far from free and fair there are too many

... factors that made it so that have been outlined for more than a couple of months

[gulliver]

40. That's a good point to make.

It's definitely worth exploring. I hope that as more evidence of the Russians undermining our election come to light, it will get serious consideration. I think the USSC would have to rule in our favor based on the evidence so far. Whether or not a case could actually be brought, it would be great to bring up in the court of public opinion.

Get people asking themselves how they think the USSC would rule. It's their country.

[Hekate]

118. Okay, uponit7771, you and gulliver do that and then report back to us how it went.

We might be able to do a go-fund-me to get you two a couple of rusty lances for the windmills ahead.

[uponit7771]

120. I'll just note all of us who didn't want to fight anything after we get stomped in 18 when we

... do all of the postmosterm steps outlined here and elsewhere 110% perfect.

Seeing the KGOP assholes stole this election with Russia who in their right minds thinks there's going to be LESS hacking when Benedict Donald gets into office?!?

[Kilgore]

78. I agree. We would be better served as a party and a nation to

Rebuild, re-energize, maybe a bit of rebranding, win back all those dems who voted for trump. Generally to stage a comeback in 2018.

Raising my blood pressure refighting a lost battle is not productive

[gulliver]

92. It's much better if we think of ourselves as rightful winners.

We are going to be in a fight with the Republicans for the next two years, so our blood pressures are going to be up. The only question is what blows we strike and what position we take ourselves to be in with regard to the last fight. We will re-energize and we will win back the Dems who voted for Trump. But remember that when doing that, people like fighters and they like winners.

Look at the news now. Trump and his Republicans are trying to bully the press and the Democrats into shutting up about Putin. They are throwing everything they have at us. They know that if people take a step back and consider what happened coolly, the Trump victory is exposed as a sham. The real victory belongs to Clinton even if there is no apparent mechanism for her to claim her rightful place in the Oval Office.

We need to assert that claim to avoid being bullied. The Republicans will not let it rest.

[HassleCat]

36. She can't do that.

Sounds like sour grapes. The people have to demand whatever is warranted by the evidence.

[uponit7771]

39. Peoples opinions don't matter facts do. Fact not in dispute: This was NOT a free and fair election

... and sour grapes doesn't factor in that factual conclusion

[HassleCat]

52. I take the opposite view.

We live in a post-truth era, where facts are whatever people prefer to believe. This is Trump's great talent, his ability to convince the electorate that facts don't matter. We can cite all the facts we want, and people will just shrug them off. Only if people take facts to heart, and demand action, will the truth matter.

[uponit7771]

57. "we" don't ... conservatives do... that's thier fault... let them push bullshit and prove it

... in court were breitbart isn't accepted as evidence

[Alice11111]

106. Unfortunately, I agree with you.

"We live in a post-truth era, where facts are whatever people prefer to believe." About half of the voters are immune to facts. Almost half of the electorate did not even vote. We have a lot of stupid, racist, ignorant, etc., people in America. Those people do not often act in their own best interests, controlled by the 1pc types they claim to despise. It's like Stockholm Syndrome.

[gulliver]

54. Sure she can. And she should.

She could say it however she wants. It would also be good for others to ask her to say it. Again, however she wants. The Republicans are already using "sour grapes" as the foundation for their attacks on Dems and their defense of Trump. It doesn't matter what Hillary or the Dems say, the Republicans are going to claim that we are being sore losers.

Don't want to give federal lands to the states so that they can be handed over to Cliven Bundy types? Sour grapes. Let it go. Grow up. Accept the election.

Don't want to repeal ObamaCare and take health insurance away from 20 million people? Sour grapes. Let it go. Grow up. Accept the election.

Insist on Cabinet and other appointees going through the same ethics process as every other appointee always has? Sour grapes. Let it go. Grow up. Accept the election.

The Republicans are hoping we won't take it a step further and boldly say why we have a problem with the stolen election. They are whistling past the graveyard hoping the Dems won't get the real meat of the argument out in the open. Because they lose if we do.

We don't have to have the Presidency given back to us. That's not going to happen. But we can take a lot of the power out of Trump's Presidency and that of the Republican Congress (not to mention that of Vladimir Putin). Power they didn't earn. Power they will claim without limit unless we undermine their claim in a bold way.

[uponit7771]

72. +1, fuck names by the Reich Winger traitors who say so what to Russia interference in our elections

[HeartachesNhangovers]

89. I think it's been announced that she will attend

the inauguration. Which means she has no intention of making a fuss. Is that the right thing to do? She was the candidate, so I'm going to let her decide what to do.

[demmiblue]

90. She's done.

Her goal was to be president, and she won't be. Leave her be.

Others will rise up despite this devastating loss.

[uponit7771]

94. It can be challenged in court under constitutional right to vote should not be abridged ...

... hacking state and local electoral boards are an abridge to voting no matter the extent of the hack.

Some rich dem can challenge this

[demmiblue]

104. Let it go. She did... nary a peep out of her since the fauxlection.

Like I said, she is done.

[uponit7771]

105. Nah, this I'll never ever let go... Russia hacking our election, voter suppression and Comey is some

... thing that can happen in 18 and push DNC to fringe party.

There's no letting this go seeing it can happen again without impunity

[onenote]

108. Not successfully.

Anyone can bring a lawsuit about anything. But that's not the same as bringing a lawsuit with a chance of success. And there is no lawsuit that can be brought successfully to challenge the result of the election. None.

In order for someone to maintain a lawsuit, the suit must be "justiciable" - a concept that every law student learns about in their first year of law school. So even assuming that there is a "constitutional right to vote" and assuming that this right was somehow infringed by the Russian hack, the plaintiff would have to prove he/she had "standing" and that the claim did not present the court with a "political question."

Standing, as you may recall, is the hurdle that the various birthers could never overcome. And it would be a hurdle that any individual plaintiff challenging Trump's election also would be unable to overcome.

The political question doctrine, while less well known, is well-settled. Put in its simplest terms, the court will not decide cases if there is "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department". In this instance, the Constitution commits the issue of deciding who has been elected president to Congress and the courts will not engage on the question. The SCOTUS famously ignored this doctrine (something that was made easy for them by the parties failure to raise the issue) in Bush v. Gore. But the fact that they screwed up Bush v. Gore isn't a particularly good argument for them to ignore the doctrine if, as can be expected, it is raised.

[Yo_Mama]

97. Why should she make herself look like a fool? He won under the rules.

She hasn't been shy about the Russian thing or winning the popular vote, but she lost the election, which is why she conceded. Anything else just makes her look eccentric, at best.

[kimbutgar]

101. I wonder how many "uncounted" boxes of ballots there are hidden in those red states from

Democratic leaning areas. I bet there are easily a million of them that were never counted.

[Hekate]

112. Remember the RW mockery of SoreLoserman? Yeah, that was fun. In the end...

...Lieberman went back to the Senate, and Gore became an elder statesman of climate change.

Pick on someone else to lead the charge and leave Hillary out of it. She's carried enough scars for us, and for little thanks from the Left.

Let's see, who would be good for stomping up and down and yelling the truth? Hmmm. Do we have anybody charismatic who could lead a revolution?

Well, we certainly have someone who says he can -- so where is he these days when it comes to speaking out on this issue?