HuffPost Says Court Can "Install" Clinton

[Spare_change]

The courts could legally “install” Hillary Clinton as president instead of Donald Trump, because of Russia’s alleged interference in the election, The Huffington Post asserted in a story Friday.

Seizing on a breaking report that the CIA has concluded Russia worked covertly to help Trump win the election, Alex Mojaher writes in HuffPo the findings could be enough for a federal court to “invalidate” Trump’s win. “Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton,” the headline reads.

“The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies,” Mojaher writes. “No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome.”

But he then goes on to assert that a 1993 state senate election result reversed by the courts due to voter fraud provides precedent for turning the White House over to Clinton. The court invalidated the Pennsylvania result after two elected officials testified under oath they knew voter fraud was happening and intentionally did nothing and even tried to bury the story. That, according to Mojaher, “recalls” the report that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knew Russia was interfering with the election and did nothing to stop the interference.

...



HuffPo Wildly Asserts Federal Courts Could ‘Install’ Clinton As President |

Mod edit: do not post entire articles. Also you need to include some original content with your OP.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

More proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder

 

[Kosh]

The courts could legally “install” Hillary Clinton as president instead of Donald Trump, because of Russia’s alleged interference in the election, The Huffington Post asserted in a story Friday.

Seizing on a breaking report that the CIA has concluded Russia worked covertly to help Trump win the election, Alex Mojaher writes in HuffPo the findings could be enough for a federal court to “invalidate” Trump’s win. “Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton,” the headline reads.

“The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies,” Mojaher writes. “No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome.”

But he then goes on to assert that a 1993 state senate election result reversed by the courts due to voter fraud provides precedent for turning the White House over to Clinton. The court invalidated the Pennsylvania result after two elected officials testified under oath they knew voter fraud was happening and intentionally did nothing and even tried to bury the story. That, according to Mojaher, “recalls” the report that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knew Russia was interfering with the election and did nothing to stop the interference.

Reports from The Washington Post and New York Times on the CIA’s conclusion Friday are conflicting regarding the extent to which Russia did interfere, and whether the country was in fact trying to help Trump. Citing senior Obama administration officials, TheNYT reports the CIA concluded with “high confidence” that Russia was intentionally working to elect Trump and harm Clinton’s chances. That lines up with WaPo’s report.

But later in the same story, TheNYT reports it is “far from clear” Russia originally intended to help Trump, and says many intelligence officials and even Clinton campaign officials think Russia was trying to undermine the integrity of the election, not help Trump directly.

Of course, even if Russia was trying to help Trump win, turning over hacked emails to the American press does not constitute voter fraud. But Mojaher seems determined to stoke the irrational hopes of Clinton supporters who still have not accepted the result of the election, even as he undermines his own assertion over and over in the story.

“Obviously both the stakes and the office in question are much higher than in the 1994 case,” he writes, adding: “There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analagous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster.”

“It is not clear how the 1994 federal case would impact a presidential election,” he goes on. “Furthermore, that case involved the judge throwing out all absentee ballots and requiring the vote be decided only by those ballots cast at the machine, which would be problematic in the case at present.”

HuffPo Wildly Asserts Federal Courts Could ‘Install’ Clinton As President |

Another far left fantasy and fake news designed to give hope to the far left drones that their fascists ways are still intact!

 

[emilynghiem]

The courts could legally “install” Hillary Clinton as president instead of Donald Trump, because of Russia’s alleged interference in the election, The Huffington Post asserted in a story Friday.

Seizing on a breaking report that the CIA has concluded Russia worked covertly to help Trump win the election, Alex Mojaher writes in HuffPo the findings could be enough for a federal court to “invalidate” Trump’s win. “Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton,” the headline reads.

“The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies,” Mojaher writes. “No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome.”

But he then goes on to assert that a 1993 state senate election result reversed by the courts due to voter fraud provides precedent for turning the White House over to Clinton. The court invalidated the Pennsylvania result after two elected officials testified under oath they knew voter fraud was happening and intentionally did nothing and even tried to bury the story. That, according to Mojaher, “recalls” the report that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knew Russia was interfering with the election and did nothing to stop the interference.

Reports from The Washington Post and New York Times on the CIA’s conclusion Friday are conflicting regarding the extent to which Russia did interfere, and whether the country was in fact trying to help Trump. Citing senior Obama administration officials, TheNYT reports the CIA concluded with “high confidence” that Russia was intentionally working to elect Trump and harm Clinton’s chances. That lines up with WaPo’s report.

But later in the same story, TheNYT reports it is “far from clear” Russia originally intended to help Trump, and says many intelligence officials and even Clinton campaign officials think Russia was trying to undermine the integrity of the election, not help Trump directly.

Of course, even if Russia was trying to help Trump win, turning over hacked emails to the American press does not constitute voter fraud. But Mojaher seems determined to stoke the irrational hopes of Clinton supporters who still have not accepted the result of the election, even as he undermines his own assertion over and over in the story.

“Obviously both the stakes and the office in question are much higher than in the 1994 case,” he writes, adding: “There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analagous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster.”

“It is not clear how the 1994 federal case would impact a presidential election,” he goes on. “Furthermore, that case involved the judge throwing out all absentee ballots and requiring the vote be decided only by those ballots cast at the machine, which would be problematic in the case at present.”

HuffPo Wildly Asserts Federal Courts Could ‘Install’ Clinton As President |

Dear Spare_change
If all the emails found with classified information on Clinton's private server
weren't enough to establish NEGLIGENCE meriting removal from office,
if none of THAT was considered proof enough,
how can these same advocates argue that
"conjecture" that Russian intervened with hacking or manipulating election votes
is ENOUGH to "prove" the results were invalid, and should be voided!

If the "conjecture" that Clinton's classified information on the server ALREADY constitutes negligence
"doesn't count because it's political"
shouldn't the SAME argument be applied to
"conjecture" here that isn't proven and thus political???

 

[Meathead]

This from the wizards at Huffpost who gave Trump a 1.5% chance of winning.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This from the wizards at Huffpost who gave Trump a 1.5% chance of winning.

Yup you gotta love the tampon squad huff post always on the case.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Fake News.

 

[NoNukes]

More proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder

Clever, did you make this up yourself? I have never heard this before.

 

[dcbl]

Liberals are looking to the courts to do what they could not do at the ballot box?

:shocked:

and the bitches at HuffPo be moonbat cra cra...

 

[9thIDdoc]

They best STFU before they get somebody killed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals are looking to the courts to do what they could not do at the ballot box?

:shocked:

and the bitches at HuffPo be moonbat cra cra...

If Democrats could steal the election by running over a group of little old ladies crossing the street, they would do it.

At this point nothing surprises me anymore. The thing is, they can't figure out why they are being voted out of seats all across the country. Well Duh! Maybe because of the things you're doing right now, did that ever cross your minds?

It shows just how out of touch they are with the American public in general. They think they can win our hearts by being infantile, using the same old lines about race, calling anything that doesn't support their evil agenda Fake News. People are just sick of it, and the Democrats don't get it yet. I hope they never do. They are serving our purpose but too stupid to realize it.

 

[owebo]

More proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder

Clever, did you make this up yourself? I have never heard this before.

Do they still feed you guys corn?

 

[miketx]

The courts could legally “install” Hillary Clinton as president instead of Donald Trump, because of Russia’s alleged interference in the election, The Huffington Post asserted in a story Friday.

Seizing on a breaking report that the CIA has concluded Russia worked covertly to help Trump win the election, Alex Mojaher writes in HuffPo the findings could be enough for a federal court to “invalidate” Trump’s win. “Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton,” the headline reads.

“The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies,” Mojaher writes. “No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome.”

But he then goes on to assert that a 1993 state senate election result reversed by the courts due to voter fraud provides precedent for turning the White House over to Clinton. The court invalidated the Pennsylvania result after two elected officials testified under oath they knew voter fraud was happening and intentionally did nothing and even tried to bury the story. That, according to Mojaher, “recalls” the report that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knew Russia was interfering with the election and did nothing to stop the interference.

Reports from The Washington Post and New York Times on the CIA’s conclusion Friday are conflicting regarding the extent to which Russia did interfere, and whether the country was in fact trying to help Trump. Citing senior Obama administration officials, TheNYT reports the CIA concluded with “high confidence” that Russia was intentionally working to elect Trump and harm Clinton’s chances. That lines up with WaPo’s report.

But later in the same story, TheNYT reports it is “far from clear” Russia originally intended to help Trump, and says many intelligence officials and even Clinton campaign officials think Russia was trying to undermine the integrity of the election, not help Trump directly.

Of course, even if Russia was trying to help Trump win, turning over hacked emails to the American press does not constitute voter fraud. But Mojaher seems determined to stoke the irrational hopes of Clinton supporters who still have not accepted the result of the election, even as he undermines his own assertion over and over in the story.

“Obviously both the stakes and the office in question are much higher than in the 1994 case,” he writes, adding: “There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analagous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster.”

“It is not clear how the 1994 federal case would impact a presidential election,” he goes on. “Furthermore, that case involved the judge throwing out all absentee ballots and requiring the vote be decided only by those ballots cast at the machine, which would be problematic in the case at present.”

HuffPo Wildly Asserts Federal Courts Could ‘Install’ Clinton As President |

Not the peter puffington post again!

 

[Fueri]

Sure, some emails were leaked, so we should've just stopped the election at that point and declared Clinton the winner.

Instead of recovering the dems get more idiotic every single day.

 

[miketx]

Sure, some emails were leaked, so we should've just stopped the election at that point and declared Clinton the winner.

Instead of recovering the dems get more idiotic every single day.

How come libs are all for law breaking? Next thing you'll post is, "What law is being broke?" Ha!

 

[Iceweasel]

Couldn't stop laughing after reading "HuffPo says".

 

[deltex1]

The courts could legally “install” Hillary Clinton as president instead of Donald Trump, because of Russia’s alleged interference in the election, The Huffington Post asserted in a story Friday.

Seizing on a breaking report that the CIA has concluded Russia worked covertly to help Trump win the election, Alex Mojaher writes in HuffPo the findings could be enough for a federal court to “invalidate” Trump’s win. “Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton,” the headline reads.

“The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies,” Mojaher writes. “No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome.”

But he then goes on to assert that a 1993 state senate election result reversed by the courts due to voter fraud provides precedent for turning the White House over to Clinton. The court invalidated the Pennsylvania result after two elected officials testified under oath they knew voter fraud was happening and intentionally did nothing and even tried to bury the story. That, according to Mojaher, “recalls” the report that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knew Russia was interfering with the election and did nothing to stop the interference.

Reports from The Washington Post and New York Times on the CIA’s conclusion Friday are conflicting regarding the extent to which Russia did interfere, and whether the country was in fact trying to help Trump. Citing senior Obama administration officials, TheNYT reports the CIA concluded with “high confidence” that Russia was intentionally working to elect Trump and harm Clinton’s chances. That lines up with WaPo’s report.

But later in the same story, TheNYT reports it is “far from clear” Russia originally intended to help Trump, and says many intelligence officials and even Clinton campaign officials think Russia was trying to undermine the integrity of the election, not help Trump directly.

Of course, even if Russia was trying to help Trump win, turning over hacked emails to the American press does not constitute voter fraud. But Mojaher seems determined to stoke the irrational hopes of Clinton supporters who still have not accepted the result of the election, even as he undermines his own assertion over and over in the story.

“Obviously both the stakes and the office in question are much higher than in the 1994 case,” he writes, adding: “There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analagous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster.”

“It is not clear how the 1994 federal case would impact a presidential election,” he goes on. “Furthermore, that case involved the judge throwing out all absentee ballots and requiring the vote be decided only by those ballots cast at the machine, which would be problematic in the case at present.”

HuffPo Wildly Asserts Federal Courts Could ‘Install’ Clinton As President |

They can also shove her up their ass.

 

[miketx]

The courts could legally “install” Hillary Clinton as president instead of Donald Trump, because of Russia’s alleged interference in the election, The Huffington Post asserted in a story Friday.

Seizing on a breaking report that the CIA has concluded Russia worked covertly to help Trump win the election, Alex Mojaher writes in HuffPo the findings could be enough for a federal court to “invalidate” Trump’s win. “Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton,” the headline reads.

“The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies,” Mojaher writes. “No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome.”

But he then goes on to assert that a 1993 state senate election result reversed by the courts due to voter fraud provides precedent for turning the White House over to Clinton. The court invalidated the Pennsylvania result after two elected officials testified under oath they knew voter fraud was happening and intentionally did nothing and even tried to bury the story. That, according to Mojaher, “recalls” the report that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knew Russia was interfering with the election and did nothing to stop the interference.

Reports from The Washington Post and New York Times on the CIA’s conclusion Friday are conflicting regarding the extent to which Russia did interfere, and whether the country was in fact trying to help Trump. Citing senior Obama administration officials, TheNYT reports the CIA concluded with “high confidence” that Russia was intentionally working to elect Trump and harm Clinton’s chances. That lines up with WaPo’s report.

But later in the same story, TheNYT reports it is “far from clear” Russia originally intended to help Trump, and says many intelligence officials and even Clinton campaign officials think Russia was trying to undermine the integrity of the election, not help Trump directly.

Of course, even if Russia was trying to help Trump win, turning over hacked emails to the American press does not constitute voter fraud. But Mojaher seems determined to stoke the irrational hopes of Clinton supporters who still have not accepted the result of the election, even as he undermines his own assertion over and over in the story.

“Obviously both the stakes and the office in question are much higher than in the 1994 case,” he writes, adding: “There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analagous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster.”

“It is not clear how the 1994 federal case would impact a presidential election,” he goes on. “Furthermore, that case involved the judge throwing out all absentee ballots and requiring the vote be decided only by those ballots cast at the machine, which would be problematic in the case at present.”

HuffPo Wildly Asserts Federal Courts Could ‘Install’ Clinton As President |

They can also shove her up their ass.

I'll supply the KY.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The courts could legally “install” Hillary Clinton as president instead of Donald Trump, because of Russia’s alleged interference in the election, The Huffington Post asserted in a story Friday.

Seizing on a breaking report that the CIA has concluded Russia worked covertly to help Trump win the election, Alex Mojaher writes in HuffPo the findings could be enough for a federal court to “invalidate” Trump’s win. “Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton,” the headline reads.

“The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies,” Mojaher writes. “No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome.”

But he then goes on to assert that a 1993 state senate election result reversed by the courts due to voter fraud provides precedent for turning the White House over to Clinton. The court invalidated the Pennsylvania result after two elected officials testified under oath they knew voter fraud was happening and intentionally did nothing and even tried to bury the story. That, according to Mojaher, “recalls” the report that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knew Russia was interfering with the election and did nothing to stop the interference.

Reports from The Washington Post and New York Times on the CIA’s conclusion Friday are conflicting regarding the extent to which Russia did interfere, and whether the country was in fact trying to help Trump. Citing senior Obama administration officials, TheNYT reports the CIA concluded with “high confidence” that Russia was intentionally working to elect Trump and harm Clinton’s chances. That lines up with WaPo’s report.

But later in the same story, TheNYT reports it is “far from clear” Russia originally intended to help Trump, and says many intelligence officials and even Clinton campaign officials think Russia was trying to undermine the integrity of the election, not help Trump directly.

Of course, even if Russia was trying to help Trump win, turning over hacked emails to the American press does not constitute voter fraud. But Mojaher seems determined to stoke the irrational hopes of Clinton supporters who still have not accepted the result of the election, even as he undermines his own assertion over and over in the story.

“Obviously both the stakes and the office in question are much higher than in the 1994 case,” he writes, adding: “There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analagous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster.”

“It is not clear how the 1994 federal case would impact a presidential election,” he goes on. “Furthermore, that case involved the judge throwing out all absentee ballots and requiring the vote be decided only by those ballots cast at the machine, which would be problematic in the case at present.”

HuffPo Wildly Asserts Federal Courts Could ‘Install’ Clinton As President |

They can also shove her up their ass.

I'll supply the KY.

....with a handful of sand in it.

 

[miketx]

....with a handful of sand in it.

You have just solved one of life's mysteries! How liberals get sand in their mangina! Thank you!