Here’s the full textual content of the back-and-forth, courtesy of CNN’s Dan Merica
Gross: You’re not likely to rule it out?
Clinton: Simply no, I wouldn’t rule it out there.
This a big offer. The 2016 Democratic nominee, who seem to won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, is specifically leaving open the possibility that she would go after legal action to invalidate the final presidential election.
I’ve paid close attention to exactly what Clinton’s been saying since the girl lost the election and I have not heard her broach the possibility of the formal challenge of the results.
Knowing what we know associated with Clinton, it seems unlikely to me that will she simply spoke off the cuff here, that this was just a good unconsidered remark. She doesn’t do that sort of thing.
Glen Caplin, a speaker for Clinton, said after the job interview aired that the former secretary associated with state “has said repeatedly the final results of the election are over yet we have to learn what happened. ”
“I would wish anyone in America concerned about the condition of our democracy would feel the same manner if we got there. But wish not, ” Caplin said. “Right now Bob Mueller and several congressional committees are investigating to what level the Russians impacted our selection and who exactly helped all of them do so. ”
And, context matters too. Clinton floated the idea of formally contesting the particular election after she said this particular about how she envisions her function in the party going forward: “I be prepared to be really active, and our voice, I’m going to keep out there. Now i’m not going to just go slowly and silently into that good night. ”
Given all that, it’s logical to conclude Clinton understood what she was doing right here.
The harder-to-answer questions are a) how she’d go about challenging the election plus b) what the prospects for this kind of challenge actually working might be.
, an associate national politics professor at Marquette University, got both questions on in a piece meant for 538 earlier this summer
. This the key bit from that item:
“Some legal scholars maintain that the vocabulary in Article II of the Metabolism prevents holding a presidential political election again, thus putting it above the power of the courts to purchase a re-vote, as they have from time to time done for other offices. Others claim that there is legal precedent for a president re-vote if there were flaws along the way. One instance in which this query arose was the ‘butterfly ballot’ from your 2000 election, which may have triggered some voters to choose Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Ing Gore in Palm Beach Region, Florida. ”
The question then isn’t actually whether Mueller is able to prove collusion. It’s whether that collusion could be proven to have directly affected real votes. And, from what we understand from every intelligence agency — at least to date — is that there is absolutely no evidence that any votes had been changed as a result of Russian interference within the election. (Trump has made this point anytime the Russia investigation comes up. )
It is possible — but far from probable — that will in the course of his investigation Mueller unearths evidence of not only collusion but also types of when that collusion changed real votes. But that’s a long way through today.
Clinton acknowledges that difficulty in the job interview with Gross. “I don’t know in case there’s any legal constitutional method to do that, ” she says associated with contesting the election results. The girl added: “There are scholars, teachers, who have arguments that it would be, yet I don’t think they’re on solid ground. ” She does carry on to immediately note, however , that will elections have been overturned due to scams in other countries. ( Read the full transcript here
There is certainly, of course , some level of irony within Clinton’s willingness to broach associated with contesting the 2016 election. Trump made headlines — when really does he not? — when he or she refused to commit to honoring the particular election results in the days leading up to the particular vote. Trump repeatedly insisted the machine was “rigged” against him. Actually on election day, he had been circumspect about whether or not he would acknowledge the results; “So no, if I believe everything’s on the up and up, this is a lot different, and we can only observe what happens, I hope it’s going to be very reasonable, I think we’re going to do very well, ” he said on the Tampa radio station on Nov 8.
That Clinton is now holding open up the possibility of formally contesting the results — even though it’s not clear what that will even entail — is yet another tip that the 2016 election was as opposed to any we’ve ever seen just before (or likely will ever see again).