Clinton won't rule out challenging legitimacy of 2016 election

[dukkha]

Democrat Hillary Clinton refused to rule out challenging the legitimacy of last year’s presidential election in an interview released Monday afternoon, though she said such a move would be unprecedented and legally questionable.

“I don't know if there's any legal constitutional way to do that. I think you can raise questions,” Clinton told NPR’s Terry Gross during an extended interview on “Fresh Air,” before pivoting to criticism of President Donald Trump’s rhetoric regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 race.

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.

While Clinton now won't rule out challenging the legitimacy of last year’s election, she criticized Trump for a similar stance during the 2016 campaign’s home stretch.

Since Trump’s surprise victory last November, the president and his allies have claimed Democrats' objection to the president’s agenda and support for ongoing Russia investigations show an unwillingness by the political left to accept the election’s results.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...itimacy-242848

[dukkha]

what a SKANK!!

[TheDonald]

Democrat Hillary Clinton refused to rule out challenging the legitimacy of last year’s presidential election in an interview released Monday afternoon, though she said such a move would be unprecedented and legally questionable.

“I don't know if there's any legal constitutional way to do that. I think you can raise questions,” Clinton told NPR’s Terry Gross during an extended interview on “Fresh Air,” before pivoting to criticism of President Donald Trump’s rhetoric regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 race.

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.

While Clinton now won't rule out challenging the legitimacy of last year’s election, she criticized Trump for a similar stance during the 2016 campaign’s home stretch.

Since Trump’s surprise victory last November, the president and his allies have claimed Democrats' objection to the president’s agenda and support for ongoing Russia investigations show an unwillingness by the political left to accept the election’s results.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...itimacy-242848

If she does this the GOP will laugh, and the Democratic party will openly mock her

[dukkha]

If she does this the GOP will laugh, and the Democratic party will openly mock her

Recall how much crap she gave Trump when he absolutely would not absolutely say he would accept the results??

SKANK!

[Life is Golden]

She redefines 'sore loser'.

[floridafan]

Its her prerogative, didn't Trump threaten to do the same thing?

[floridafan]

But to you it was fine when trump said he might do the exact same thing

[Bill]

Will she contesting it before the next election??

How long does it take?? the old dirty will be dead by the time it goes through the courts etc.

Everyone knows he won't leave till he's ready..

[dukkha]

Its her prerogative, didn't Trump threaten to do the same thing?

Trump wouldn't committ, essentially they both said the same thing- they couldn't guarantee accepting the results.
Except Trump was excoriated for saying that..
Clinton goes on talk shows -throws out a bomb and it barely causes a ripple.

Fake News protects Clinton

[christiefan915]

Its her prerogative, didn't Trump threaten to do the same thing?

Yes, he absolutely did. More than once. He had the balls to insist "without offering evidence, that the general election has been rigged against him, and he twice refused to say that he would accept its result."

And how about this one: "Donald Trump said Thursday that he would accept the results of the presidential election “if I win,” but he doubled down on his threat to legally challenge the results if he loses."

[cawacko]

Hey Legion, you keep asking why people talk about her...

[dukkha]

Hillary Clinton has come a long way since ... last fall.

The former secretary of state said Monday that she hasn't ruled out questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election. The way she sees it, it all depends on the degree to which the Russians interfered in the process.

This is a long way off from when she argued during the campaign that it was a "direct threat" to U.S. democracy to question the integrity of the election.

NPR's Terry Gross asked Monday, "[W]ould 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?"

"No. I would not," Clinton responded.

"So what are the means, like, this is totally unprecedented in every way — " Gross began to say.

"It is," Clinton said.

Gross followed up, asking, "What would be the means to challenge it, if you thought it should be challenged?"

"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," Clinton responded.

The former secretary of state added, "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."

Hold onto your hat. It gets pretty wild from here:

"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."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hi...rticle/2634797

^ ????
*WTF is she babbling on about?*

[Русский агент]

Recall how much crap she gave Trump when he absolutely would not absolutely say he would accept the results??

SKANK!

[Darth Omar]

I'm starting to think there's something seriously wrong with her.

[Русский агент]

I'm starting to think there's something seriously wrong with her.

It's been obvious for some time.