In the weeks leading up to the presidential election of Democrat Hillary R. Clinton vs. Republican Donald J. Trump, a belated controversy arose that sought to end Trump’s prospects of capturing the White House. This conspiratorial effort came following the Republican nominee’s rhetoric during the third presidential debate on the integrity of the American electoral process and whether or not he would immediately accept the outcome of the election. “If you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people registered to vote… that shouldn’t be registered to vote. So, what I’m saying is that, I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense,” said Trump. Clinton rebutted Trump’s comments with harsh rebukes, calling his answer “horrifying,” and claiming that the billionaire business mogul was “talking down our democracy”. Perhaps Clinton should retake not only Civics 101 but also Ethics 101, for we are not a democracy, nor is it immoral to question the legitimacy of an election that, at the time, had not even happened yet.
Nevertheless, the mainstream media — as it did for the entirety of the 2016 election cycle — mirrored Clinton’s viewpoints on this issue. In the aftermath of the third debate, a tidal wave of political pundits and news show hosts crashed over the political landscape to criticize Trump for his apprehension to accepting his loss before it had even occurred. CNN, The Washington Post, Huffington Post, BBC, ABC and MSNBC all produced articles decrying Trump for his stance on this particular issue. Precluding that Trump would lose the election, and staying in step with Clinton’s rhetoric, these articles called Trump “a threat to our electoral process”, “deeply troubling,” “narcissistic,” and the like. Even the office of the President was tainted with such egregious remarks, as President Barack Obama claimed that Trump was “whining before the game’s even over” in his refusal to immediately accept the result of the election no matter the circumstances.
Imagine, then, the surprise of these out-of-touch, bloated bureaucrats when the vote totals from the presidential election began to pour in. Somehow, Donald Trump had managed to win 306 electoral votes, surpassing the 270 needed and being declared the President-elect. In an instant, all of the hullabaloo that the mainstream media, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had created over Trump’s perceived lack of respect for our republic had been made redundant. The shock of Clinton’s loss hit her supporters, both in the general public and in the news media, stupendously hard. However, the American public was informed at 1:30 AM that the Democratic nominee had conceded to the winner of the election.
Given how much of a fuss Clinton made over Trump’s refusal to immediately accept the result of the election, one would rightfully assume that she would not be so bold as to not accept the election result herself. However, such idealistic assumptions should not be made when dealing with the Clinton dynasty.
In the last few days, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, who received 0.98% of the national popular vote and no electoral college votes, has started a fundraising initiative to file for recounts in three states; Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Coincidentally, these three states were the states where Trump’s margin of victory was the narrowest. Additionally, these three states could, if all of their results are overturned, flip the result of the election and give Clinton a poultry 278-260 electoral college victory. It is hard to see Stein’s angle in filing for a recount in these specific states, given that these states are filled with demographics that voted for her the least frequently, and given that she most likely has nothing to gain from a recount. However, perhaps Stein’s motive can be made evident when looking at who has contributed to her fundraiser, and when examining the Clinton campaign’s reaction to this initiative.
Most of the money raised thus far has allegedly been received from former supporters of Hillary Clinton, including allies of George Soros, the liberal plutocrat who gave $25 million to Clinton’s campaign. Additionally, the Clinton campaign has been quick to jump on the bandwagon of this viporous attack on our electoral process. Marc Elias, the former general counsel for Clinton’s now-defunct presidential campaign, released a statement on November 26th in which he stated that the Clinton campaign was prepared to participate in the recount filed for by the Green Party of the United States. Elias admitted that “…we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology…”. Could Stein and her Green Party progressivists be a pawn in the overarching motive of the Democratic campaign to exact revenge on the voters for choosing Trump over Clinton?
The effects of this recount are not yet known fully, but one can speculate with great caution what they might be. First, the recount serves to reawaken the liberal mob that tore apart Oakland, California and brought damage and inconvenience to several major cities across the country. When this recount is proven to be farcical, and Trump is determined to still be the winner of the election, there will be another wave of blind leftist rage in America’s city streets.
Second, the recount serves to line the pockets of leftist figureheads by scamming the same near-sighted progressives who supported Bernie Sanders. Sanders scammed these same Americans out of $220 million of their hard-earned spending money, and Stein expects to be able to do the same.
Third and finally, the recount has the indirect yet blatantly calculated effect of casting a shadow of a doubt on the legitimacy of President-elect Trump’s tenure as President. Americans witnessed in the early 2000’s, following the loss of Democrat Al Gore to Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election, liberal mania and refusal to recognize that Bush was the President. The primary cause of this failure to accept on the part of some Democrats was the fact that Gore had filed for a recount in the key state of Florida, despite there being absolutely no legitimate reason for any sort of recount to take place. It is possible that Clinton and her cronies seek to emulate this same sort of melodrama by leaving room for uncertainty on whether President Trump should be the one in office.
In terms of threats to the electoral process, or narcissism, or tactics which are deeply troubling, Hillary Clinton has shown herself to, once again, be trumping the competition. She is nothing short of a sore loser, clawing for the straws, attempting to find some way to usurp the electoral process designed to protect these United States from tyrants such as herself. It is absolutely disgraceful that she, after having looked across the debate stage at Donald Trump and having denounced his mere skepticism as “horrifying,” is engaging in such underhanded charades.