As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Clinton Refuses to Rule Out Challenging Election Result

The Clintons have been a threat to the republic ever since they appeared on the scene in 1991. I mean, seriously, this woman’s lust for power and her lack of principle is frightening. I don’t understand how anyone can hate Trump but like or support Hillary. Even Nixon walked away after Kennedy very possibly stole the 1960 election. Nixon. This woman makes Nixon seem like a cherub dancing around the Lord’s throne.

From an appearance on PBS’ “Fresh Air” with host Terry Gross:

GROSS: I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?

CLINTON: No. I would not. I would say —

GROSS: You’re not going to rule it out?

CLINTON: No, I wouldn’t rule it out.

GROSS: So what are the means, like, this is totally unprecedented in every way —


GROSS: What would be the means to challenge it, if you thought it should be challenged?

CLINTON: Basically I don’t believe there are. There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be, but I don’t think they’re on strong ground. But people are making those arguments. I just don’t think we have a mechanism.

Plus she is delusional enough to think anyone would believe this:

Let me just put it this way, if I had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college, and in my first day as president, the intelligence community came to me and said, “The Russians influenced the election,” I would’ve never stood for it. Even though it might’ve advantaged me, I would’ve said, “We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.” I would’ve set up an independent commission with subpoena power and everything else.

H/T Breitbart.

6 Responses to Clinton Refuses to Rule Out Challenging Election Result

  1. Good grief. Challenge what exactly – the counting of the votes, the paid advertising sponsors, the validity of the voters, or some other thing that might confuse someone?

    Suppose the Russians DID expose the Podesta emails, or the fact that Hillary had her own private server to keep secrets – is that interference worthy of the upheaval of the electoral validity? Did the Russians force the FBI’s Comey to say what he did about the email controversy, and if they did, how does that make for a legal challenge to a 100 million votes?
    I know what she wants – a “do over”. She figured out where she went wrong and wants to campaign in a different way.
    We don’t have a “do over” election in the US.

  2. That she is continuing, nearly a year later, to demonstrate the depths of her insatiable lust for power, should serve as a reminder of just how unfit she is to have it.

  3. Just say it comes out that the Russians “influenced” the election. Does she think Trump will say, yep, you’re right, come on down and move in to the White House? Does she expect the supreme court to invalidate the election? How is the “influence ” going to be grounds for overturning an election? Go away,