Hillary still stewing about her election loss, now questions its legitimacy

For Hillary Clinton, it's never going to end.  I, I, me, me, mine.

It was mine!

She's never going to get over losing the election to Donald Trump.  And with her foundation's pay-to-play donations drying up, and she herself sinking into irrelevancy – an unwelcome guest at the Democratic Party dinner table – why should she?  She's lost two elections, and now she's too old and in too frail a state of health to try a third time.

So now, after blaming sexism, Bernie Sanders, James Comey, and anybody but herself many times over in her new memoir, she's returned to the Russians, this time questioning the legitimacy of the election itself, something that has been on the underboil ever since President Trump was sworn in.  Now she's saying it directly.

From an interview with National Public Radio:

I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?

No. I would not. I would say —

You're not going to rule it out.

No, I wouldn't rule it out.

So what are the means, like, this is totally unprecedented in every way —

It is.

The strange thing is the conspiratorial way she justifies it – by citing a recent election in Kenya:

You know, the Kenya election was just overturned and really what's interesting about that – and I hope somebody writes about it, Terry – the Kenyan election was also a project of Cambridge Analytica, the data company owned by the Mercer family that was instrumental in the Brexit vote.

There's now an investigation going on in the U.K., because of the use of data and the weaponization of information. They were involved in the Trump campaign after he got the nomination, and I think that part of what happened is Mercer said to Trump, "We'll help you, but you have to take Bannon as your campaign chief. You've got to take Kellyanne Conway and these other people who are basically Mercer protégés."

And so we know that there was this connection. So what happened in Kenya, which I'm only beginning to delve into, is that the Supreme Court there said there are so many really unanswered and problematic questions, we're going to throw the election out and redo it. We have no such provision in our country. And usually we don't need it.

So it's not because of the Russians that the election needs to be scrapped and done over – it's that the Mercers are all-powerful, and Bannon and Conway were involved in the last one.  Such is Hillary's fluid blame-spreading.

The only axis unifying all of these excuses is that the election was her entitlement, hers to win, hers alone, and they took it away from her.

We were doing fine after that. We had a great convention; I won all three debates. I was judged by every poll – public and private – as on my path to winning.

So it has to be illegitimate.

Thus far, she hasn't submitted one scintilla of proof that anyone's vote was changed by whatever the Russians did.

Nor can she concede that the Russians, as well as James Comey, Bernie Sanders, and all the other people she blamed, did little more than tell the truth about her.  The truth is what did her in, even as she lays in with the blame on others.  Is she saying that the truth about her should never have been told?  And that would be the only means of making the election legitimate? 

Such are the musings of a woman whose only thoughts remain me, me, me.

For Hillary Clinton, it's never going to end.  I, I, me, me, mine.

It was mine!

She's never going to get over losing the election to Donald Trump.  And with her foundation's pay-to-play donations drying up, and she herself sinking into irrelevancy – an unwelcome guest at the Democratic Party dinner table – why should she?  She's lost two elections, and now she's too old and in too frail a state of health to try a third time.

So now, after blaming sexism, Bernie Sanders, James Comey, and anybody but herself many times over in her new memoir, she's returned to the Russians, this time questioning the legitimacy of the election itself, something that has been on the underboil ever since President Trump was sworn in.  Now she's saying it directly.

From an interview with National Public Radio:

I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?

No. I would not. I would say —

You're not going to rule it out.

No, I wouldn't rule it out.

So what are the means, like, this is totally unprecedented in every way —

It is.

The strange thing is the conspiratorial way she justifies it – by citing a recent election in Kenya:

You know, the Kenya election was just overturned and really what's interesting about that – and I hope somebody writes about it, Terry – the Kenyan election was also a project of Cambridge Analytica, the data company owned by the Mercer family that was instrumental in the Brexit vote.

There's now an investigation going on in the U.K., because of the use of data and the weaponization of information. They were involved in the Trump campaign after he got the nomination, and I think that part of what happened is Mercer said to Trump, "We'll help you, but you have to take Bannon as your campaign chief. You've got to take Kellyanne Conway and these other people who are basically Mercer protégés."

And so we know that there was this connection. So what happened in Kenya, which I'm only beginning to delve into, is that the Supreme Court there said there are so many really unanswered and problematic questions, we're going to throw the election out and redo it. We have no such provision in our country. And usually we don't need it.

So it's not because of the Russians that the election needs to be scrapped and done over – it's that the Mercers are all-powerful, and Bannon and Conway were involved in the last one.  Such is Hillary's fluid blame-spreading.

The only axis unifying all of these excuses is that the election was her entitlement, hers to win, hers alone, and they took it away from her.

We were doing fine after that. We had a great convention; I won all three debates. I was judged by every poll – public and private – as on my path to winning.

So it has to be illegitimate.

Thus far, she hasn't submitted one scintilla of proof that anyone's vote was changed by whatever the Russians did.

Nor can she concede that the Russians, as well as James Comey, Bernie Sanders, and all the other people she blamed, did little more than tell the truth about her.  The truth is what did her in, even as she lays in with the blame on others.  Is she saying that the truth about her should never have been told?  And that would be the only means of making the election legitimate? 

Such are the musings of a woman whose only thoughts remain me, me, me.

RECENT VIDEOS