Showing posts with label Politics-USA Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics-USA Clinton. Show all posts

June 19, 2018

"There was no FBI conspiracy against Trump. But agents loyal to Rudy Giuliani were eager to sink Hillary Clinton"

 Here’s what’s buried beneath that FBI report: How rogue agents sabotaged the Clinton campaign 


Everyone should remember that Rudy Giuliani played a significant role in the Trump presidential campaign and was especially visible during the last month or so. On Oct. 25, 2016, he made a couple of TV appearances in which he hinted broadly that the campaign had an October surprise coming.

On "Fox & Friends" he was asked if Trump had anything planned other than "inspiring rallies" and he said "yes" (at the 8:50 mark). When asked what that was, he responded this way:  
“Heh-heh-heh,” Mr. Giuliani laughed. “You’ll see.”
Appearing to enjoy his own coy reply, Mr. Giuliani resumed chuckling: “Ha-ha-ha.”
“When will this happen?” Ms. Earhardt asked.
“We got a couple of surprises left,” Mr. Giuliani said, smiling.
Later that day he appeared on another show and gleefully reiterated his claim. You can see it at the two-minute mark in the following video:

September 21, 2017

Feds Wants Anthony Weiner in Jail As a Pedophile

 Former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner is more than a serial digital philanderer -- he's a danger to the public who deserves two years in prison for encouraging a 15-year-old girl to engage in online sex acts, prosecutors told a judge Wednesday. 
A Manhattan judge is scheduled to sentence the New York Democrat on Monday for transferring obscene material to a minor. 
The government urged the judge to put Weiner's claims of a therapeutic awakening in a context of a man who made similar claims after embarrassing, widely publicized interactions with adult women before encountering the teenager online in January 2016. Prosecutors said his conduct "suggests a dangerous level of denial and lack of self-control." 
"This is not merely a 'sexting' case," prosecutors wrote. "The defendant did far more than exchange typed words on a lifeless cellphone screen with a faceless stranger. ... Transmitting obscenity to a minor to induce her to engage in sexually explicit conduct by video chat and photo - is far from mere 'sexting.' Weiner's criminal conduct was very serious, and the sentence imposed should reflect that seriousness." 
The young woman told "Inside Edition" that she was "disgusted" when she received a photo of Weiner with his young son, CBS New York reports. "That's part of the reason I came forward," she said. 
Weiner, 53, said in a submission last week that he's undergoing treatment and is profoundly sorry for subjecting the North Carolina high school student to what his lawyers called his "deep sickness." 
Prosecutors attacked some of Weiner's arguments for seeking leniency and noted his full awareness beforehand of his crime, citing his co-sponsorship in January 2007 of a bill to require sex offenders to register their email and instant message addresses with the National Sex Offender Registry. 
"While the government does not contend that Weiner engaged in inappropriate sexual exchanges with other minors or that he is a pedophile, his professed ambivalence toward the minor victim's age is belied by the defendant's own statements to the court-appointed evaluator during his evaluation," they said.  
Prosecutors said Weiner, who unsuccessfully ran for mayor in 2005 and 2013, acknowledged to the evaluator an interest in legal, adult, teen-themed pornography. 
The government said Weiner's "widely-reported prior scandals" were not criminal in nature and did not involve minors but should be considered at sentencing because they reveal a familiar pattern. 
"He initially denied his conduct; he suffered personal and professional consequences; he publicly apologized and claimed reform. Yet, he has, on multiple occasions, continued to engage in the very conduct he swore off, progressing from that which is self-destructive to that which is also destructive to a teenage girl," prosecutors said. 
They added: "Weiner's demonstrated history of professed, yet failed, reform make it difficult to rely on his present claim of self-awareness and transformation." 
Defense lawyers had portrayed the girl as an aggressor, saying she wanted to generate material for a book and possibly influence the presidential election. 
Prosecutors responded that Weiner should be sentenced for what he did, and his victim's motives should not influence his punishment. A defense lawyer declined to comment Wednesday. 
In a plea bargain, Weiner has agreed not to appeal any sentence between 21 and 27 months. Prosecutors said the sentence should fall within that span, and they noted that Probation Office authorities had recommended a 27-month prison term.
After the 15-year-old came forward about Weiner's emails, prosecutors began an investigation into his laptop, which led to the discovery of a cache of emails from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner's estranged wife. Then-FBI Director James Comey re-opened the investigation in Clinton's emails, just days before Election Day

April 21, 2017

Hillary Blasts Trump on LGBT’s and Silence on Gays in Chechnya

Hillary Clinton on Thursday warned that President Donald Trump could roll back progress on LGBT rights.
"We may not ever be able to count on this administration to lead on LGBT issues," Clinton said in a speech in New York.
Clinton was addressing a fundraising dinner for The Center, an LGBT community organization, where she received an award and thanked members of the audience for supporting her unsuccessful 2016 presidential bid. But she told those gathered there to watch out for "the progress that we fought for, that many of you were on the front lines for."
    "It may not be as secure as we once expected," she said.
    The event was yet another public foray for Clinton, who in the weeks and months immediately after her electoral upset, generally did not comment on politics. More recently, however, she has used speaking events to lay into Trump and the Republican Party. 
    At her speech Thursday evening, she listed several controversial moves by the Republican administration and stressed their importance.
    "When this administration rescinded protections for transgender students, my heart broke," Clinton said. "When I learned about the proposed cuts in funding for HIV and AIDS research, I thought about all of our efforts to try and achieve an AIDS-free generation."
    Clinton criticized Trump in particular for his decision to nominate Mark Green, who she called an "outspoken opponent" of LGBT rights, to replace former Army Secretary Eric Fanning, the first openly gay man to hold the job.
    "Some of the changes that we're seeing should seem small, but they matter a great deal if you're the person affected," Clinton said. "Others carry historic significance, like the future of the Supreme Court."
    She called on attendees to participate in organizations that would foster progress on human rights and for the United States to call out abuses of gay people abroad, like the reported homophobic killings in Chechnya. She said due to the Trump administration's posture on gay rights, people needed to "never stop fighting" and focus on winning upcoming elections, from the midterms on.
    "I know the election hit a lot of us hard," Clinton said, pausing for laughs before continuing. "I can tell you this: Even when it feels tempting to pull the covers over your heads, please keep going."
    Clinton's historic stances on same-sex marriage have often been criticized, too. When her husband was president, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which stood for years as a roadblock to marriage equality. 
    Clinton herself was publicly opposed to same-sex marriage for years, gradually changing her tone before fully embracing marriage as a right regardless of sexual orientation sometime between her 2008 campaign and a 2013 video on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign.
    As secretary of state, she declared, "gay rights are human rights," echoing her famous words in China as first lady. She repeated the statement Thursday evening, to sustained applause.

    March 28, 2017

    NY Times Review: The Cause of Clinton’s Loss Election(Not Turnout)

    In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, many analysts suggested that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald J. Trump because of poor Democratic turnout.
    Months later, it is clear that the turnout was only modestly better for Mr. Trump than expected.
    To the extent Democratic turnout was weak, it was mainly among black voters. Even there, the scale of Democratic weakness has been exaggerated.
    Instead, it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump. Over all, almost one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-class supporters defected from the Democrats in 2016, either supporting Mr. Trump or voting for a third-party candidate.
    This analysis compares official voter files — data not available until months after the election — with The Upshot’s pre-election turnout projections in Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The turnout patterns evident in these states are representative of broader trends throughout the battleground states and nationwide.
    The turnout was slightly and consistently more favorable for Mr. Trump across all three states. But the turnout edge was small; in one of the closest elections in American history, it might not have represented his margin of victory. 
    A More Favorable Electorate for Trump
    In general, white and Hispanic voters roughly matched expectations of voter share or made up a slightly larger share of the electorate than expected, while black voters made up a smaller share.

    The Electorate Was About What We Expected 

    Black and Democratic voters made up a somewhat smaller share of the electorate than expected. Negative numbers indicate groups that represented a smaller-than-expected share of the electorate. 

    In North Carolina

    White70.7%71.4%0.7 pts.
    Black21.4%20.7%-0.7 pts.
    Hispanic1.8%2.0%0.2 pts.
    Other/unknown6.1%5.9%-0.2 pts.
    Democrats40.3%39.3%-1.0 pts.
    Republicans32.4%33.0%0.6 pts.
    Other27.3%27.7%0.4 pts.

    In Pennsylvania

    White71.9%71.8%-0.1 pts.
    Black8.7%8.1%-0.6 pts.
    Other/unknown15.9%16.4%0.5 pts.
    Democrats47.9%47.4%-0.5 pts.
    Republicans41.6%41.3%-0.3 pts.
    Other10.6%11.3%0.7 pts.

    In Florida

    Black13.1%12.5%-0.6 pts.
    Hispanic14.2%14.8%0.6 pts.
    Democrats38.4%38.1%-0.3 pts.
    Republicans38.8%38.7%-0.1 pts.
    Other22.8%23.2%0.4 pts.

    This was mainly a result of higher white and Hispanic turnout; black turnout was roughly in line with our pre-election expectations. On average, white and Hispanic turnout was 4 percent higher than we expected, while black turnout was 1 percent lower than expected.
    Whether black turnout was “disappointing” or “poor” is a matter of perspective. It was consistent with our pre-election models, but it was significantly lower than it was four or eight years ago, when Mr. Obama galvanized record black turnout.
    Our pre-election estimates did not anticipate that black turnout would stay at such elevated levels, since African-Americans still had a weaker track record of voting in midterm and primary elections when President Obama was not on the ballot.
    Ultimately, black turnout was roughly as we expected it. It looks as if black turnout was weak mostly in comparison with the stronger turnout among white and Hispanic voters.
    This was part of a broader national pattern. Mr. Trump’s turnout edge was nonexistent or reversed in states with a large Hispanic population and a small black population, like Arizona. His turnout advantage was largest in states with a large black population and few Hispanic voters, like North Carolina.
    What was consistent across most states, however, was higher-than-expected white turnout.
    The increase in white turnout was broad, including among young voters, Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated voters, urban, rural, and the likeliest supporters of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. The greatest increases were among young and unaffiliated white voters.
    For this reason alone, it’s hard to argue that turnout was responsible for the preponderance of Mr. Trump’s gains among white voters. The turnout among young and white Democratic voters was quite strong.
    But the turnout was generally stronger among the likeliest white Trump supporters than among the likeliest white Clinton supporters.
    Over all, the turnout among white voters with a greater than 80 percent chance of supporting Mr. Trump was 7 percent higher than expected, while the turnout was 4 percent higher among white voters with greater than an 80 percent chance of supporting Mrs. Clinton.
    The stronger Republican turnout among white voters narrowed the Democratic registration edge below pre-election expectations in Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

    Only a Modest Effect

    So how much did turnout contribute to Mr. Trump’s victory? As the party registration numbers and turnout figures by race imply, just a bit. But Mr. Trump won the election by just a bit — by only 0.7 percentage points in Pennsylvania, for example.
    We estimated the presidential vote of every registered voter, based on our pre-election polls, voter file data and the results of every precinct. With these individual-level estimates of vote choice, it’s easy to assess how the election might have gone differently with a different electorate.
    These estimates suggest that turnout improved Mr. Trump’s standing by a modest margin compared with pre-election expectations. If the turnout had gone exactly as we thought it would, the election would have been extremely close. But by this measure, Mrs. Clinton still would have lost both Florida and Pennsylvania — albeit very narrowly.
    It’s important to note that this is just one analysis, based on one set of data. Over the coming months or years, other analysts may conclude that the effect of turnout was larger or smaller than our estimates suggest. Their conclusions could differ if, for instance, their pre-election models showed a different electorate (say, they expected another big 2012-like turnout among black voters), or if their polling data shows that the people who voted were more or less supportive of Mr. Trump compared with those who stayed home.
    Even so, it would surprise me if other analysts reach a fundamentally different conclusion, based on interviews with pollsters and data analysts from both parties. In such a high-turnout election, it’s difficult for the voting electorate to be vastly different than expected.
     For comparison, consider just how much worse Mrs. Clinton would have done with the 2014 electorate. Young, nonwhite and Democratic voters did not turn out in large numbers that year, and Mrs. Clinton would have probably lost Florida and Pennsylvania by a wide margin. Her losses would have been smaller in North Carolina, perhaps because the state had such a competitive Senate race in 2014.
    Based on these data, Democrats are right to blame many of their midterm election losses on weak turnout. They’re on far shakier ground if they complain about the turnout last November.
    This doesn’t mean that Democrats can’t improve on turnout. If the turnout had been as good for Mrs. Clinton as it was for Mr. Trump, she would have won by our analysis. But even then, she would have only scratched by.

    The Trump-Obama Vote

    If turnout played only a modest role in Mr. Trump’s victory, then the big driver of his gains was persuasion: He flipped millions of white working-class Obama supporters to his side.
    The voter file data makes it impossible to avoid this conclusion. It’s not just that the electorate looks far too Democratic. In many cases, turnout cannot explain Mrs. Clinton’s losses.
    Take Schuylkill County, Pa., the county where Mr. Trump made his biggest gains in Pennsylvania. He won, 69 percent to 26 percent, compared with Mitt Romney’s 56-42 victory. Mrs. Clinton’s vote tally fell by 7,776 compared with Mr. Obama’s 2012 result, even though the overall turnout was up.
    Did 8,000 of Mr. Obama’s supporters stay home? No. There were 5,995 registered voters who voted in 2012, remain registered in Schuylkill County, and stayed home in 2016.
    And there’s no way these 2016 drop-off voters were all Obama supporters. There were 2,680 registered Democrats, 2,629 registered Republicans and 686 who were unaffiliated or registered with a different party. This is a place where registered Democrats often vote Republican in presidential elections, so Mr. Obama’s standing among these voters was most likely even lower.
    Were they mostly supporters of Bernie Sanders? Unlikely: He was popular among the young, but 67 percent of the 2016 drop-off voters were over age 45, and 35 percent were over age 65. Just 5 percent voted in the Democratic primary in 2016, and 7 percent voted in the Republican primary.
    Is it possible that the registered Democrats who turned out were Trump supporters, and that the Democrats who stayed home were likelier to be supporters of Mrs. Clinton? Perhaps, but our polling suggests the opposite. In our pre-election Upshot/Siena polls, voters were likelier than nonvoters to support their party’s nominee.
    Survey data, along with countless journalistic accounts, also suggest that voters switched in huge numbers.
    Throughout the campaign, polls of registered voters — which are not subject to changes in turnout — showed Mrs. Clinton faring much worse than Mr. Obama among white working-class voters.
    The postelection survey data tells a similar story: Mrs. Clinton won Mr. Obama’s white-working class supporters by a margin of only 78 percent to 18 percent against Mr. Trump, according to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.
    In the Midwestern battleground states and Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton had an advantage of 76 percent to 20 percent among white working-class Obama voters.
    The survey data isn’t perfect. It relies on voters’ accurate recall of their 2012 vote, and that type of recall is often biased toward the winner. Indeed, the C.C.E.S. found that Mr. Obama had 54 percent of support among 2012 voters, compared with his actual 51 percent finish.
    But the data all points in the same direction: Shifts in turnout were not the dominant factor in Mr. Trump’s success among white working-class voters.
    Nate Cohn
    New York Times

    December 21, 2016

    It is Official Hillary Tranced Trump on Pop Vote

    More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than any other losing presidential candidate in US history.

    The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

    Clinton's 2.1% margin ranks third among defeated candidates, according to statistics from US Elections Atlas. Andrew Jackson won by more than 10% in 1824 but was denied the presidency, which went to John Quincy Adams. In 1876, Samuel Tilden received 3% more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, who eventually triumphed by one electoral vote.

    Though the legitimacy of his victory has never come into serious doubt, Trump has repeatedly argued, usually via Twitter, that he would have won the popular vote, too, if that had been his focus.
    "I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote -- but would campaign differently," he tweeted as recently as Wednesday morning, more than six weeks after the election. In late November, Trump also falsely claimed that "millions" of Clinton voters had cast ballots "illegally."

    Meanwhile, high-profile Clinton supporters have held up the dissonant results as an argument for fundamentally changing the system.
    A week after the election, retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and vocal Clinton backer, introduced a bill to abolish the Electoral College.

    "This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency," Boxer said in a statement. "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately."
    Two days later, New York Congressman Charlie Rangel put forth companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

    Measuring the electoral margin
    In the final count, Clinton surpassed President Barack Obama's 2012 total by 389,944 votes, but narrow losses in key battleground states meant Obama won 100 more electoral votes on Election Day.
    Trump's victories in swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida -- all carried by Obama four years ago -- gave him a comfortable edge in the Electoral College. Still, Trump’s claims of a "massive landslide victory" are belied by past statistics, which place his win among the narrowest.

    If all the electors had voted in accordance with their states' results during meetings on Monday, Trump would have garnered 56.9% -- or 306 -- of the 538 available electoral votes. Two defections lowered his final share to 56.5%. Clinton won 232 electoral votes on November 8, but "faithless electors" also brought down her total.

    The 2016 electoral votes will be counted on January 6 by a Joint Session of Congress, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding over the largely symbolic meeting. Trump will be inaugurated on January 20 in Washington.

    December 11, 2016

    With 2. 5 Mil Votes Ahead Clinton Had to Beat Trump and the KGB

    Clinton is 2.5 Millions ahead after the mailed in ballots counted,
    even though the votes were not counted. She had to run against Trump and the Russian KGB, never before.  
    As mail-in and absentee voter ballots continue to trickle in and the country braces for President-elect Donald Trump to step into power, Hillary Clinton quietly marked a milestone. 
    The latest election totals showed that Mrs Clinton, who lost to outsider Mr Trump last month, has received more votes than Mr Obama did in his 2012 victory, according to data from the National Archives and a running total by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report
    She has overtaken Mr Trump by more than 2.5 million votes (48% to Mr Trump's 46%).
    Mrs Clinton’s lead is the largest of the five times when a US presidential candidate won the popular vote but failed to win the election. 
    In fact, aside from Mr Obama’s 2008 win, Mrs Clinton has received more votes than any other US presidential candidate in history. 

    Yes, but the US has more voters, right?

    The US has seen a dramatic rise in population over the last century, which would partly explain why Mrs Clinton received more votes than previous candidates.
    This year the US had 200 million registered voters for the first time in history. 
    So the proportion of Clinton votes might be more illuminating than simply how many votes she earned.
    Her popular vote margin of 2.5 million falls short of the three million votes of George W Bush victory over John Kerry in 2004.
    And it's a long way behind the 18% margin of victory Ronald Reagan earned in 1984.
    But these were both winning margins.
    The last time a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election was in 2000, when President Bush received 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore and still took the White House. 
    So, allowing for population growth, how does Clinton's total compare?
    The 2004 election had a higher turnout than the 2016 election by about 1.7% of the voting age population, Stanford University political scientist David Brady points out. 
    If the 2016 election had the same percentage of voting age population, about 2 million more voters would have gone to the polls. 

    Does it matter?

    Mr Trump is well over the 270 Electoral College threshold with his insurmountable lead of 306 votes to Mrs Clinton's 232, which means former Green Party nominee Jill Stein's recount campaign in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is unlikely to change the electoral math. 
    Mr Brady likens it to the 1960 World Series, when the New York Yankees scored 55 runs while the Pittsburgh Pirates earned only 24 runs. But the Pirates still won the series 4-3. 
    "She loses the World Series because she didn't win the right amount of states," he said. 
    •  The disproportionate effect of her vote is focused in Democratic-dependent states like California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, said Bill Whalen, a senior research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute.
    "It reflects where the population shift is in America and that the population has become very coastal," Mr Whalen said. 
    But though metric of the popular vote does not change the outcome, it undercuts the argument that Mrs Clinton failed to mobilise Democrats, giving her supporters some sense of vindication.
    In fact, Mr Trump's margin of victory in some key swing states was smaller than the number of votes Ms Stein, a third party candidate, received in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - three states that helped hand him the presidency.
    However, Mr Brady's analysis of voter data in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin as well as Minnesota, found that districts in which Mrs Clinton won by more than 70% showed that though the population had increased, turnout was down.
    Conversely, the districts that Mr Trump carried in those states by more than 70% showed that population had declined, but turnout had increased, signaling Mrs Clinton was unable to energise voters in those key states the way her Democratic predecessor did in 2008 and 2012. 

    Does Trump have a mandate?

    Mrs Clinton's popular vote win has left a bitter taste in the mouths of some Democrats, who contend Mr Trump is ignoring her support and governing with a mandate he does not have. 
    Vice President-elect Mike Pence and former Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, Mr Trump's chief of staff, have boasted about Mr Trump's "landslide" victory.
    "Trump can't claim a mandate in the purist sense," Mr Whalen contended, noting that President Obama did not claim a mandate in 2008 despite taking the popular vote as well as 365 electoral votes. 
    He can, however, claim a mandate in an intellectual and emotional sense, according to Mr Whalen, noting that the narrative of people rejecting the political system and the status quo was reflected in Mr Trump's candidacy. 
    Despite that political narrative, a plurality of Americans still cast their vote for Mrs Clinton.
    "The problem with winning the popular vote is it just adds to the already hard feelings about this election," Mr Whalen said.
    Courtney Subramanian

    December 6, 2016

    Rogue (Faithless) Electors’Talking’ in the Background-Clinton Wants No Part!

    Short intro to the Electoral College:
    The Electoral college System came about and it stayed even when there was no reason for people to stay home because of lack of transportation or roads (which was the original excuse) since by the 1800’s those problems were solved (if they ever existed). People could just vote in town at city hall or the courthouse or even at a school or church. The behind the scene reason however and the one no one wants to talk about was and sometimes is “slaves.” The slave owners were scare that eventually the slaves would have the vote. That sentiment became stronger as there were more and more freed slaves living in the populous north. The democracy way of one man one vote put these business people at a disadvantage. The electoral system ensured that the smaller in population slave owning states in the South would have a say of whom the President would be, not the populous “slave loving whites of the North.” Though the democracy fighting and free loving new nation became something other that a democracy of free loving people. Our nonsensical Electoral College still with us in the millennium making less and less sense on every election. Even if it doesn’t show it’s faults like it did in the past election, How can we tell people with a straight face,  every vote count?

    One of the reasons Donald Trump made such a big deal of blaming Hillary Clinton for the recount even though He knew she had nothing to do with it but he wanted to warn her in no uncertain way to stay away not only from the recount but more importantly from trying to change any electors mind. You have electors that are Republicans and also Democrats and by Trump loosing the popular vote by so much which is never happened like this before at least there would be some talk among the electors about going rogue.

    The last thing Hillary Clinton needs is to have a Derange with anger Trump and a GOP Congress come after her making her life miserable for the next few years. Still the recount is going without any support from Clinton and many believe that if the recount shows Clinton winning one or two states that were called as a loss for her it might change minds about the accuracy of the vote in general and the legality of Trump being declare winner by the electoral College.

    Having said all that the media says there is no chance of the electors change their mind. I don’t know why they are so certain of that since it has happened before and it was the same media that said Hillary Clinton would win. 
    Advocates of the long-shot bid to turn the Electoral College against Donald Trump have been in contact with close allies of Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions, but the Clinton camp — and Clinton herself — have declined to weigh in on the merits of the plan.

    Clinton’s team and the Democratic National Committee have steadfastly refused to endorse the efforts spearheaded by a group of electors in Colorado and Washington state. But, as with the ongoing recounts initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein, the Clinton team has not categorically rejected them, leaving the collection of mainly Democratic electors to push forward with no explicit public support from the failed Democratic nominee or any other prominent party leaders.

    In a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, former Clinton campaign officials declined repeated requests to comment on the Electoral College effort. DNC officials also have not responded to requests for comment.

    The Clinton camp’s silence follows its cautious approach to another long-shot effort to deny Trump the presidency: the last-minute recount efforts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan launched by Stein. Stein’s aggressive push has annoyed Clinton aides but has also not drawn their outward condemnation — Clinton’s top campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, said in carefully chosen language Nov. 26 that the campaign will “participate” in the recounts, without expanding on its plans to get involved.

    “Regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself,” wrote Elias.

    The electors leading the anti-Trump push say they’re operating without regard to the Clinton campaign’s views and without its assistance. To some leaders of the anti-Trump effort, the lack of formal Democratic Party engagement is an asset as they attempt to woo Republicans.

    “We’re really doing this on our own,” said Polly Baca, a Democratic elector from Colorado and organizer of “Hamilton Electors,” the group encouraging Republican defections from Trump. “This is something we have to do as electors. This is our responsibility.”

    But Clinton will not be able to avoid getting drawn into the Electoral College machinations. That’s because her husband — former President Bill Clinton — is a Democratic elector from New York. Aides to the former president have declined repeated requests for comment on whether he intends to fulfill the role or pass it to an alternate when New York’s Electoral College members convene in Albany on Dec. 19. Baca has indicated that she intends to reach out to all electors — including Clinton — for support.

    Another leader of the Hamilton Electors group, Colorado elector Micheal Baca (no relation to Polly), said the group’s outreach efforts are wide-ranging.

    “Given what’s at stake, we have been outreaching to everyone we can including electors, various members of both parties, and the media,” he said. “One of the most inspiring things about this entire process is how we have encountered such patriotism from both sides of the aisle and much willingness to unite for America.”

    Backers of Hamilton Electors are also preparing a wave of lawsuits challenging 29 state laws that purport to bind electors to the results of the statewide popular vote. These laws have never been enforced or tested, and many constitutional scholars believe they conflict with the Founders’ vision of the Electoral College as a deliberative body. Courtroom victories, they hope, will embolden other electors to join their cause.

    All 538 members of the Electoral College will meet on Dec. 19 in their respective state capitals to cast the formal vote for president. Trump won the popular vote in states that constitute 306 electors — easily above the 270-vote threshold he needs to become president if all Republican electors support him. That’s why anti-Trump electors are working to persuade at least 37 Republican electors to ditch Trump, the minimum they’d need to prevent his election, and join them in support of a compromise candidate, which could send the final decision to the House of Representatives. Clinton won the popular vote in states that include a total of 232 electors. As of Monday, she led in the popular vote nationwide by more than 2.6 million votes.

    At least eight Democratic electors are promising to defect from Clinton and support a Republican alternative to Trump.

    While Trump’s lawyers have been working to stymie the recounts, his campaign has paid little attention to the Electoral College initiative. The same is true of the Clinton camp. Clinton would need all three recounts to overturn the Election Day results to get to 270 electoral votes — an extremely unlikely scenario.

    Recounts aside, there’s little incentive for the Clinton camp to become involved with the anti-Trump effort because it can result only in detracting from her electoral vote total. The only reason to engage at all would be to support an effort to deny Trump an Electoral College majority.

    Featured Posts

    Police Union For NYS Troopers Want Out of NYC Because of the NO Chokeholds Law

    "SEND THEM AWAY TO ANOTHER STATE I SAY" I hear Russia is Hiring...                                       ...