Imagine, if you will in these troubled times, a losing presidential candidate officially contesting the outcome of an election. Consider the implications; the social unrest, the constitutional crisis, the violence and, quite possibly, the full-blown civil war or revolution. It sounds like what might occur in some central or southern African nation but, thanks to Hillary Clinton, it could be America.
Speaking recently to Terry Gross, host of NPR’s Fresh Air radio show, Clinton had strong words for President Donald Trump and his election victory. One might think that no American politician would be willing to plunge the nation into chaos to satisfy their own ego and ambition but, since we are talking about Clinton, it should not come as a surprise.
Hillary Clinton Incites Violence
Asked by Gross how she felt about losing to Trump, Clinton responded that it was “painful.” How painful is not clear. As painful as listening to the former First Lady narrate her new book? Surely not. Expanding on her thoughts about Trump himself, Clinton said, “I believe that Donald Trump poses a clear and present danger to our democracy, to our institutions, to the rule of law, to the civil rights and human rights of so many Americans…”
Reflect, we must, on two very significant concepts: First, that left-wingers keep telling us that speech is violence. Second, that any patriotic American, faced with the leadership of such a dangerous man as Clinton describes, would be compelled to take direct action to protect the nation from these multiple, horrific threats. Thus, only one conclusion can be drawn from Clinton’s words: Americans have a duty to overthrow – by force, if necessary – the administration of Donald Trump.
Challenging the Election Result
Terry Gross
Fearing that she had not gone far enough to destabilize the entire country, Clinton soon took her personal insanity to a new level. Raising the prospect that Trump’s alleged collusion with Russian officials may have, somehow, swayed the election, Gross asked Clinton “do you think, at some point, that it would be legitimate to challenge the legitimacy of the election?” Acknowledging that such action would be difficult, in legal and constitutional terms, Clinton found herself pressed on the issue. “Would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election,” Gross persisted, “if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?”
Clinton’s answer was ominous. “No. I would not. No, I wouldn’t rule it out.” In all fairness, Clinton did expound on her position that, in the United States, there is no lawful way to pursue such an unprecedented challenge. One could also speculate, however, that she would do nothing to prevent options outside the law. She has, after all, identified herself as a member of “the resistance.”
Hillary Clinton may be dishonest and unlikeable and cold and humorless and out of touch…
There is no but, here; merely a statement.
She is, however (okay, there is a but), shrewd and calculating. She sets Trump up as a dangerous and unacceptable leader, then meekly points out that there is no lawful way to overturn the election. The implications are quite unnerving.
Many would shrug and attach little importance to this interview, but – as we have seen before – certain individuals and groups, regardless of ideology, are willing to act upon the musings of politicians and other public figures. Given the almost cult-like following that Clinton still enjoys, her words could easily be taken as a call to action by the less reasonable members of society.
We still enjoy freedom of speech in the United States, even though it is under almost daily assault. In these times of such extreme political polarization, however, would it not be wise for our current and former political leaders to choose their words more carefully?
Candidate Trump appeared to vacillate, during one interview, on whether or not he would accept the election result, should he lose. He was almost certainly not serious and merely indulging his tendency to evoke stunned double-takes from the media. He may also have been alluding to the possibility of a recount. This is a far cry indeed from challenging the legitimacy of a sitting president. Clinton’s response to Trump’s ambiguity was one of horror. Already assuming she would win the election, she described Trump’s possible refusal to accept the election result as “a direct threat to our democracy.” Would it not be wise for her to follow her own publicly-stated position, rather than stir more unrest in this divided nation?
