The unprecedented attempt to weaken the impact of Donald Trump’s stunning presidential victory entered a new and more ominous phase this past week as the effort by Green party candidate Jill Stein – and latecomer to the party Hillary Clinton – to spur recounts in the pivotal states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan petered out with court decisions barring recounts in two states and a recount in the third resulting in an increase in Mr. Trump’s tally.
That the push to change the results would be unsuccessful was a foregone conclusion. Even recount proponents readily conceded the overall results in the three states would be sustained since neither Ms. Stein’s nor Mrs. Clinton’s numbers were close enough to Mr. Trump’s to indicate a reasonable chance of success.
However, as we noted in our December 2 issue, the immediate goal of recount activists was to force a delay in the Electoral College vote past the mandated December 19 date, which would throw the selection of the president into the House of Representatives, as the Constitution provides.
And although the Republican majority in the House would doubtless choose Mr. Trump, he would instantly become a classic footnote president who not only failed to get a majority of the popular vote but Electoral College validation as well. His ability to govern, let alone achieve some of the sweeping policy changes he promised during the campaign, would be greatly compromised.
The original delaying ploy having failed, individual electors in the Electoral College are now being urged – again, with Hillary Clinton’s support – to consider ignoring Mr. Trump’s popular majority in their individual states and vote for Mrs. Clinton on the grounds that Russian hackers may have somehow swayed the election in Mr. Trump’s favor.
And to their shame, Republican powerhouses such Senators Mitch McConnell and John McCain and Congressman Paul Ryan, who fought Mr. Trump throughout the campaign and who are no fans of his, have become fellow travelers. They coyly credit the allegations by calling for an investigation without saying when such a probe should take place. They seem to have an agenda of their own with regard to shaping their working relationship with Mr. Trump.
To be sure, there is nothing wrong with pursuing possible improper Russian intrusion into an American election. But calling for it in the midst of the current controversy without distinguishing the issues? Where were Messrs McConnell, McCain, and Ryan when the Pentagon and the Department of the Army were hacked, with information on millions of U.S. military personnel stolen? And where were they when the story emerged of Hillary Clinton’s use of an unprotected personal server for State Department business?
And then there is the matter of determining whether there is sufficient evidence of foreign interference with the election or that it even matters. For example, assume it is determined that FBI Director James Comey broke the law because of the timing of his announcement within days of the election that he was reopening the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation – which she claims sealed her fate. Would that be legal grounds for seeking to invalidate the election results? And how, exactly, would the case be proven? Wouldn’t millions of voters have to be questioned as to what effect the Comey episode had on them?
And can any of this conceivably be allowed to be under the purview of individual Electoral College electors?
But consider this: This week, ten members of the Electoral College, nine Democrats and one Republican, asked the Office of Director of National Intelligence for a briefing on any ongoing investigations into ties Donald Trump or his associates may have to the Russians. And two lawsuits have been filed seeking judicial rulings that Electoral College electors are not bound to follow the majority vote in their states.
So we can’t help but believe that the motivation for all of this frenetic activity has little to do with prevailing on the issues but everything to do with muddying the waters and hoping for delays in the Electoral College phase of the election.
