Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
First, this is NOT a Huffington Post Staff Article....this is the section where the HP allows outside writers post their blogs or opinion pieces that they wrote.
Second, he does not say the court can simply do this, he is saying if somewhere down the road, there is PROOF the Russians or anyone, HACKED the VOTES, then there is somewhat of a precedence, that a court could 'install' the other candidate as the winner, or rather uninstall the winner.
HOWEVER the article goes on to say, that this case in Pennsylvania, where the court made this ruling, did NOT have electors involved and a constitutional presidential process for the "what ifs".....and a Presidential election does have means to handle these situations without the courts making the decision.... IT'S JUST A BLOG, don't panic!
Patton Oswalt Reacts To Russian Hacking Revelation With No-Holds-Barred Post | The Huffington Post
The high court’s decision to not interfere with the lower court’s ruling indicates at least some federal legal precedent that high courts may rule the outcome of an election invalid due to fraud or interference. Which is to say, that if after Donald Trump assumes office it is shown that Russian hacking (or any fraud, for that matter) robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency, there is some legal authority on point that implies courts could seat Clinton instead.
Yes, and if pigs could fly, you and I could make a fortune selling helmets.First, this is NOT a Huffington Post Staff Article....this is the section where the HP allows outside writers post their blogs or opinion pieces that they wrote.
Second, he does not say the court can simply do this, he is saying if somewhere down the road, there is PROOF the Russians or anyone, HACKED the VOTES, then there is somewhat of a precedence, that a court could 'install' the other candidate as the winner, or rather uninstall the winner.
HOWEVER the article goes on to say, that this case in Pennsylvania, where the court made this ruling, did NOT have electors involved and a constitutional presidential process for the "what ifs".....and a Presidential election does have means to handle these situations without the courts making the decision.... IT'S JUST A BLOG, don't panic!
Patton Oswalt Reacts To Russian Hacking Revelation With No-Holds-Barred Post | The Huffington Post
The high court’s decision to not interfere with the lower court’s ruling indicates at least some federal legal precedent that high courts may rule the outcome of an election invalid due to fraud or interference. Which is to say, that if after Donald Trump assumes office it is shown that Russian hacking (or any fraud, for that matter) robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency, there is some legal authority on point that implies courts could seat Clinton instead.
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 |
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 |
I agree.The NSA had been hacking Angel Merkel for YEARS until Wikileaks blew the whistle on them.
Everybody hacks everybody else. We hack them they hack us.... I mean, come on. Grow up already
dimocrap scum are just crying about -- Everything.
It makes me smile.
Oh those democrats.....And in other news, The KKK has announced that the constitution when properly twisted while reading, allows for sending all of the blacks to Africa with nothing more than a bucket of KFC.
Collecting intell on other nations is one thing. Using that intell to undermine another nation is a completely different matter.I agree.The NSA had been hacking Angel Merkel for YEARS until Wikileaks blew the whistle on them.
Everybody hacks everybody else. We hack them they hack us.... I mean, come on. Grow up already
dimocrap scum are just crying about -- Everything.
It makes me smile.
Espionage among nations is absolutely normal!
Every country spies on other countries!
If only that would become reality!And in other news, The KKK has announced that the constitution when properly twisted while reading, allows for sending all of the blacks to Africa with nothing more than a bucket of KFC.
In theory this is true.Collecting intell on other nations is one thing. Using that intell to undermine another nation is a completely different matter.I agree.The NSA had been hacking Angel Merkel for YEARS until Wikileaks blew the whistle on them.
Everybody hacks everybody else. We hack them they hack us.... I mean, come on. Grow up already
dimocrap scum are just crying about -- Everything.
It makes me smile.
Espionage among nations is absolutely normal!
Every country spies on other countries!
why do you want to see all of our KFC send out of the country? do you not like KFC?If only that would become reality!And in other news, The KKK has announced that the constitution when properly twisted while reading, allows for sending all of the blacks to Africa with nothing more than a bucket of KFC.
Like the Chinese hacking into defense contractor computers to steal F-35 research and use it to build their J-31? Yes, espionage happens, but in this case the topic is about influencing an election through hacked emails.In theory this is true.Collecting intell on other nations is one thing. Using that intell to undermine another nation is a completely different matter.I agree.The NSA had been hacking Angel Merkel for YEARS until Wikileaks blew the whistle on them.
Everybody hacks everybody else. We hack them they hack us.... I mean, come on. Grow up already
dimocrap scum are just crying about -- Everything.
It makes me smile.
Espionage among nations is absolutely normal!
Every country spies on other countries!
But when it comes to espionage I think reality is different
Like the Chinese hacking into defense contractor computers to steal F-35 research and use it to build their J-31? Yes, espionage happens, but in this case the topic is about influencing an election through hacked emails.
Why are you supporting the Chinese committing espionage? Are you a fucking commie sympathizer?Like the Chinese hacking into defense contractor computers to steal F-35 research and use it to build their J-31? Yes, espionage happens, but in this case the topic is about influencing an election through hacked emails.
Was any of the leaked information false?
Was any of it misleading?
No.
What you're saying is that The American People should be deprived of any information that might do harm to dimocrap scum??
figures
Did Chinese really do that Divine.Wind? I'm really surprised because I heard F35 was a very bad military aircraft
Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Yes they did. The F-35 is new technology and new technology always has teething pains. Additionally, a finicky Congress which first authorizes budgets then cuts those budgets creates a Yo-Yo effect on long term programs....not to mention the state politics involved of where different components are built.Did Chinese really do that Divine.Wind? I'm really surprised because I heard F35 was a very bad military aircraft
Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
