Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, argues “against an electoral coup,” picking apart the left’s arguments for a mass demonstration of faithless electors.
Lowry writes that claims of “Russian hacking” were well litigated before the election, and voters considered and rejected them.
Then, there’s Russia. John Podesta wants electors to get an intelligence briefing on Russia’s hacking during the campaign, which is a way of insinuating that Trump’s victory was illegitimate. This, too, was argued about for months prior to the election. Voters had the option of discounting the WikiLeaks revelations given their provenance. To the extent this issue was decisive — and no one can know for certain — voters valued the new information about Hillary even though it was stolen. Again, there is no case for electors overruling them.
(It’s also a bit rich seeing the same liberals who defended President Barack Obama’s deference to Putin for years suddenly become cold warriors.)
It’s not that there aren’t legitimate concerns about Trump’s temperament and cavalier attitude toward executive power. But these were thoroughly hashed out during the election as well; in fact, Hillary Clinton campaigned on little else. And she lost, narrowly, but decisively. This is what Democrats have to accept.
Read the rest of the article here.