Calls Grow For A New Presidential Election To Be Held After Russia Meddled To Help Trump … It is finally being said out loud, in public, on national television. America may need to hold a new presidential election after Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. –Politicus
We can see the tide building to challenge Trump before the Electoral College votes to install him as president.
Now a former CIA official has gone on television to say that the only solution to questions being raised involve an electoral “do-over.”
Former CIA Operative Robert Baer brought up the idea of holding a new election during an appearance on CNN: Baer said, “The Russians, it looks like to me did interfere in our elections.
“We’ll never be able to decide whether they changed the outcome, but I’ll tell you having worked in the CIA if we had been caught interfering in European elections, or Asian elections, or anywhere in the world, those countries would call for new elections.
“Any democracy would. I mean, I don’t see it any other way. The Electoral College before the nineteenth has got to know whether the Russians had an effect, Whether they went to Wikileaks, whether they hacked email, and whether they affected American opinion. They had a good reason to go after Hillary Clinton. Putin hates her for the Ukraine.”
The CIA has already made news for suggesting that Russian hacking of the US elections was credible and may have done significant damage to results.
It seems obvious that elements of the CIA are solidly aligned with the Democratic Party and with the Clintons in particular. When pressed, congressmen touting “intelligence reports” supporting the impact of the Russian hacks cannot provide specific facts and the CIA itself will not do so .
This hasn’t stopped alternatives to Trump from evolving. In addition to an election do-over, Clinton advocates are fighting to change the results of the potential electoral college vote and also are considering turning to the courts to appoint Hillary as president in light of the claimed fraud. Here, from HuffPo:
Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton … A 1995 federal court ruling out of Pennsylvania may offer some clues to Clinton supporters as to possible legal authority for removing an elected official from office and replacing them with their erstwhile opponent …
… In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the ruling of a federal district judge in Pennsylvania that invalidated a state senate election due to fraud, ordering the winner be removed from office and the subsequent vacancy be filled by his opponent. (Marks v. Stinson, 1994).
The article goes on to admit there are differences between today’s situation and the one on which the court decision was based, most significantly the upcoming decision by the Electoral College.
For this reason, a newly formed rogue faction known as the Hamilton Electors is reportedly organizing an effort to deny Trump the 270 votes he needs. The Hamilton group has one mission: convincing enough Electoral College to deny Trump the presidency and then, if possible, reorient the election so it supports someone else.
The main name that has emerged is not Hillary but Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. Kasich has already said he won’t cooperate.
A good deal of the justification for these efforts is Hillary’s supposed mounting lead over Trump in the popular vote. But most of this lead is coming from a few large, metropolitan cities where considerable, undetected voting fraud may have taken place.
Additionally, if one wants to make the popular vote the determination for office, then most national – federal – elections would be determined by these cities. The rest of the US including the “red states” would suffer accordingly and languish without input into the federal process.
Conclusion: Trump has begun to speak out against suggestions that he actually is losing the presidential popular vote and in addition has blasted the CIA’s suggestion that Russia actively helped him win. Here at DB, as a libertarian publication, we have often pointed out that elections, especially large ones, usually don’t deliver what they promise. But this is an unusual election and political season and events are growing continually more heated. Ramifications may be considerable, though not predictable.