Here [1] is a 2016 article from CNN, titled Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results. The articles says that "they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked". Of course no such evidence existed, but it was most certainly among the allegations that Democrats were making in the wake of their loss.
> Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.
Is there a word for someone or something that mirrors your sins back at you, but in a grotesquely amplified manner?
Hilary's accusation is in some way legitimate though considering that the Mueller report found a foreign nation interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. And then there was the making a mountain out of a molehill of her e-mail server with Comey coming out and publicly reprimanding her for it like a schoolmaster, which undoubtedly affected public perception of how electable she was at a critical time.
Of course it's not clear if Hilary would have won if there was no such interference, but her claim is not nearly as far-fetched as all the baseless crazy batshit stuff being thrown around by republicans nowadays.
No. Stop trying to defend this behavior. Leveling the charge that the President is “illegitimate” and “knows he stole” the election is a serious accusation and should be backed by real evidence. Nothing in the Mueller report suggests that Russia swayed a decisive number of votes in an election where the parties spent billions of dollars on marketing and advertising. Democrats’ “blue wall” states swung 15-20 points in Republicans’ favor compared to 2012. Russians didn’t cause that. And the report confirms that Trump himself wasn’t involved with whatever contacts the campaign had with Russia.
I’ll grant you that Clinton’s allegations are less “far-fetched” than Trump’s. But that shouldn’t be the standard! We shouldn’t be trying to draw distinctions over claims that are totally made up and ones that are only mostly made up.
He appeared on stage, during the election, and cheerled a series of email hacks conducted by the Russian government that almost certainly determined the outcome of the election. I accepted the results of the election at pretty much the same time Clinton did, the day after election day, but the accusation is colorable. Unlike birtherism. And no, the latter is not an amplified version of the former!
It’s a huge leap to go from cheering the leak of those emails to alleging that Trump colluded with Russia to “steal” the election. To me that implies manipulating votes. I don’t think releasing information can ever count as “stealing” an election. Certainly that doesn’t justify calling him “illegitimate.” If those emails changed the outcome of the election, that’s only because the information was probative to voters.
To use a legal analogy, I don’t see political discourse as being something where there should be judges excluding unreliable or prejudicial materials. Information is fair game.
If true, isn't it essentially a recapitulation of Watergate, except that the break-in occurred online and not in a DC hotel? Watergate cost Nixon his presidency.
I was against impeachment (I still think it was stupid), because it was a political stunt with no hope of actually removing the president. But just morally, Trump richly deserved investigation. "Where's there's smoke, there's fire", and Trump's campaign and administration put out a burning oil well's worth of smoke. He lost his National Security Advisor to a foreign agent violation within weeks of taking over. Senior members of his campaign coordinated with Julian Assange. I don't think you can pretend like this was all fake.
(Just to calibrate: I also think Clinton should have been impeached).
There was an uncharted level of animosity in public discourse that election cycle mostly because of Trump, and within the context of all the shit-flinging happening at that time of "locking her up", this accusation being made by a politician on a morning show, while I agree with you it's not entirely going along the spirit of a peaceful transition of power, I rather chalk it up as just a punch back in the political arena. Yes, that she said this was not responsible on her part, but she did call Trump a day or two after the election to concede and congratulate him on his win.
Without even getting into the brute facts about the 2016 election: there's a world of difference between Hillary Clinton being a sore loser as a private citizen and Donald Trump being a sore loser in the office of the executive.
I guess, if you are comparing -- 54 or so election fraud court cases lost, many with republican judges and vote systems run by republicans vs impeachment, fbi report findings that would have been enough to charge any normal citizen and but because a sitting president can't be proscicuted not acted on, what 12-18 of his close circle either pleading or found guilty of charges. Yeah seems close.
There is something seriously wrong with the republican party watching the destruction of core values -- I for one will never vote for them again. But I guess folks like me who were life long republicans until Trump are just silly dems.
The fact that Trump has the party on a leash is just insane. Republicans watching idly as he actively subverts all norms of transfer of power and millions choosing to grasp at theories that would be espoused by drunkards on city corners 5 or 6 years ago is insane.
