Clinton Resorts to Scorched Earth Policy. Now Consciously Undermining Our Democracy


During the third debate, when Donald Trump suggested he would challenge the results of the election if there was evidence of tampering he was met with these derisive comments from Hillary Clinton:

“We’ve been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.


“And let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what that means. He’s denigrating, he is talking down our democracy. And I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.”

My, how times have changed.  Trump won the election despite signs that there had been significant voting improprieties conducted against his voters and in favor of Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that nothing the recount could find would change the election’s result yesterday when campaign lawyer Marc Elias said no evidence had been uncovered of “any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.”

So why is her campaign now participating in a recount after Elias said “We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.  But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself?”

Besides challenging the vote count, Clinton loyalists are now threatening Donald Trump’s electors if they don’t change their allegiance when the Electoral College votes.  This was not an isolated threat by a single disgruntled Clinton supporter but rather a virtual deluge of death threats and other threats of physical violence against Trump’s electors across multiple states.

Ensuring the accuracy of the vote through what will prove to be an unnecessary recount is a foolish waste of money but as least it can be argued on some level as having some basis in protecting the integrity of our elections. 

Threatening electors is entirely different and steps over any defensible line for someone sworn to protecting our electoral process.  It is a direct attack on the very foundation of our democracy.  This type of heavy handedness is reserved for third world dictatorships. 

So what is Mrs. Clinton up to?  Why is she silent as her supporters conduct a direct threat to our democracy?

Why isn’t Hillary Clinton demanding her supporters cease and desist from threatening Trump’s electors?  Answer, she’s just fine with their un-Democratic assault on our election. 

As always she’ll let others do the dirty work for her while she plays the role of the victim.  In the case of the Michigan recount it will be Jill Stein who carries the water for Mrs. Clinton.  Stein received only slightly more votes than you did in Michigan.

Hillary Clinton infamously confessed to having one face in public and a different one in private.  And that is clearly the case this one final time as her minions seek to undermine our electoral process just as she spent her career undermining our democracy for her own benefit.

If Mrs. Clinton truly believed in protecting the integrity of our democracy she would publicly condemn those challenging the vote count, ask the protesters committing acts of violence and property damage to cease and desist, and rebuke in the most unforgiving manner those miscreants threatening Trump’s electors.

Hey Hillary, “We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.”  What part of this doesn’t apply to you?

Mrs. Clinton now stands on the precipice of political irrelevancy, as well she should, caused by her own vacant resume while in public service, her personal avarice that violated the public trust, and her abysmal campaigning skills. 

Sadly, Mrs. Clinton can’t accept her own lifetime of failure as her histrionics on election night illustrated.  This is a failure of character that was perhaps predictable to those who have followed her career closely.

Mrs. Clinton now finds herself unable to accept the voters’ rejection as 240 unbroken years of candidates have done, almost always gracefully.  Like a spoiled brat, Mrs. Clinton would rather tear the system down.