Huffington Post Contributor: Hillary Clinton’s Failure to Win Even 20 States Means She Is ‘Legitimate President-Elect’

Madam President Newsweek Cover Getty
Getty images

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s inability to win even 20 of America’s 50 states means she is the “legitimate president-elect,” a contributor to the off-the-rails progressive blog Huffington Post wrote.

“Hillary Clinton is the Legitimate President-Elect,” reads the headline on the Huffington Post for a piece from “political writer and commentator” Alex Mohajer.

“The evidence is clear. Hillary Clinton is the rightful president-elect, and courts must use the broad discretionary powers with which they are vested to enjoin an illegitimate president from taking office,” the sub-headline on Mohajer’s piece reads.

The post got 17,000 shares on social media, according to the Huffington Post’s own metrics on the page, which means this is a popular viewpoint on the hard left.

Clinton failed to win even 20 U.S. states. The only states Clinton won outright were Washington state, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Hawaii. She won Maine’s first congressional district and the District of Columbia as well. In total, that means Hillary Clinton won 19 and a half states and the only territory—Washington, D.C.—that has electoral votes. In other words, Hillary Clinton wasn’t strong enough as a candidate to win 20 states.

President-elect Donald J. Trump, the rightful and legitimate president-elect on the other hand, won 30 and a half states. In addition to Maine’s second congressional district, Trump won the following states: Alaska, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. In other words, Trump’s 30 and a half states smoked Clinton’s 20 and a half states.

In several of the states where Clinton won, she barely eked out a victory. In Minnesota, for instance, she only bested Trump by about 43,000 votes. The fourth place candidate, independent ex-Republican Evan McMullin—who placed behind third place Libertarian Gary Johnson—actually got more votes than Clinton’s margin of victory in Minnesota. That’s remarkable because Republicans haven’t won Minnesota in a presidential election since 1972 in Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign, and Trump barely focused on the state at all, having just one staffer on the ground according to campaign sources, spending no money on in-state advertising, and appearing there only a couple times throughout the entire campaign—including just once in the final few months. In Minnesota, she only earned 46.9 percent of the vote to take the state’s 10 electoral votes.

In New Hampshire, as well, Clinton won by less than 3,000 votes in a state where more than 700,000 were cast—and she didn’t even get 50 percent there. In New Hampshire, Clinton’s 47.6 percent was less than half a percent better than Trump’s 47.2 percent—hardly a decisive victory there.

Colorado, another state where Hillary Clinton not only failed to hit 50 percent but lagged down at 47.2 percent, gave its nine electoral votes to her even though she barely squeaked by with a minuscule 71,741 vote lead over Trump to win. And in Nevada, where she also finished under 50 percent, Clinton won the state’s six electoral votes by getting just 26,434 more votes than Trump—a state where thanks to now retired former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s prowess, she was supposed to perform much better. Even New Mexico almost handed her defeat, as she squeaked by in that state by just 64,849 votes.

In fact, nationwide, out of the 19 and a half states Clinton won, six of them—New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Minnesota—delivered her victories with less than 50 percent of the state’s vote. Out of the 30 and a half states Trump won, only five—Arizona, Utah, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—were with less than 50 percent of the state’s vote. In the case of Utah, fluke candidate McMullin pulled 21 percent of the vote under an odd set of favorite son circumstances that didn’t translate at all nationally—it wasn’t Trump weakness or Clinton strength in that case—so ultimately there were really only four such instances of Trump winning with less than 50 percent out of many more states he won.

In other words, not only did Trump absolutely crush Clinton to cruise to 306 electoral votes—Clinton only won a measly 232—but in the states he won, he won definitively. In the states where Clinton won, she barely squeaked by.

Don’t let logic stand in the way of a teary-eyed progressive snowflake, though. Citing claims from Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) that Trump is not a “legitimate” incoming president, the Huffington Post contributor Mohajer describes mythical Americans watching in “abject horror” as the transition to an “increasingly belligerent” Donald Trump presidency carries on. Mohajer writes:

The unrelenting onslaught and sheer breadth of scandal and conflict has left an American electorate fatigued and uncertain as to the best path of resistance following a protracted election season that may be the most volatile in history. As Americans, we are culturally predisposed to seek rapid closure rather than answers, oftentimes more comfortable expressing outrage at a perceived injustice than we are willing to remedy it. In grief and in politics, we are taught to stick to the script.

Mohajer carries on throughout his piece to point out that intelligence agencies believe that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails—leaking the disclosures that proved Clinton cronies and the DNC rigged the primaries to steal the nomination from Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, that Clinton did say very controversial things to closed-door groups of bankers in paid speeches, that the media industry was by and large in the tank for Clinton entirely from the get-go to the point where so-called “reporters” would run their copy by top Democrats for approval before filing to their editors, and so much more—and then WikiLeaks published them.

Never mind the fact that these so-called intelligence agencies also circulated what’s widely now believed to be a discredited report filled with fantasies on this front that caught BuzzFeed and CNN printing “fake news” to different degrees. The intelligence agencies—the same ones that told us there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—have not provided a single iota of proof to the public yet. There may be proof in the classified briefings, and even if such proof emerges publicly later, that doesn’t discount the fact that what was disclosed on WikiLeaks amounts in a just world to what should be Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalism given the breadth and depth of what it exposed.

It’s not the Russians’ fault—or the fault of whoever actually hacked them if the Russians didn’t, assuming they weren’t provided by a human intelligence source (still a possibility)—or the fault of Republicans including Trump or the fault of WikiLeaks that the DNC and Podesta didn’t secure their email systems enough. Republicans at the Republican National Committee (RNC) did, as has been established, work with law enforcement to ensure there were appropriate security measures on their email systems.

Nonetheless, the Huffington Post’s Mohajer argues that the Russians tilted the election to Trump and stole it from “legitimate president-elect” Hillary Clinton. Mohajer wrote:

Every major intelligence agency in the country has reached the same conclusion: Russian hackers engaged in cyber attacks with the express purpose of helping Donald Trump win the election. They operated at the directive of Russian President Vladimir Putin, apparently motivated by his hatred for Clinton. As secretary of state, Clinton was ‘by far the most aggressive and outspoken’ American official to counter Putin’s efforts to expand his global reach, famously criticizing him for undermining his own elections and likening him publicly to Hitler. Clinton’s brass in standing up to Putin, by all accounts a murderer and former KGB Agent who has bombed civilian hospitals in Aleppo and is the primary backer of Syrian dictator Bashir Al-Assad, should have inspired, at the very least, a nod of respect from conservatives. Instead, Putin’s approval ratings have gone up among Republicans. Years of partisan squabbling have trained both sides to turn every political conflict into a ‘Democrats versus Republicans’ issue, and subsequently conservatives would rather side with Putin than acknowledge the legitimacy of a Hillary Clinton presidency. The result? A troubling trend towards normalizing Trump’s ‘unpresidented’ behavior, and a reluctance to look at the evidence.

Mohajer proceeds to present his case first using the irrelevant popular vote numbers in the United States. Sure, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in the popular vote—thanks in large part to coastal cities like New York City and Los Angeles that are out-of-touch with the rest of the country—by just under three million votes. But since the time of the founding fathers, the popular vote in presidential elections in the United States has not mattered. What wins or loses presidential elections is the electoral college, and it was on this front that Trump massively succeeded—winning scores more votes than Clinton, absolutely crushing her throughout the country.

Mohajer’s second evidential point is a study that claims that Russian hacking—which he still hasn’t evidentially established actually happened—somehow influenced the “outcome of the election.” Nobody, not even Mohajer, claims that Russians hacked U.S. voting machines or election and vote-counting infrastructure. So, there is really no way to know—and it’s up for debate—how much each story did or didn’t impact the outcome.

Sure, the stories about the Podesta and DNC emails revealed significant corruption and embarrassing outcomes about different things they did and probably did have an impact in the race, as they informed people more about both entities and how they stole the nomination from Sanders and how Clinton herself is an open borders globalist, among other things. But does that mean the Russians—if they did hack this information and provide it to WikiLeaks for publication—stole the election from Clinton by enlightening the American people with factual, interesting, newsworthy, and revealing information about her?

Mohajer’s third point is that Trump went to Russia in 1987.

“Donald Trump has been openly dishonest about his relationship with Vladimir Putin and his ties to Russia,” Mohajer wrote. “An EIR article from 1987 details how the Russian government was gifting Donald with all-expense paid trips to Moscow and grooming him for a presidential run.”

He embedded a Tweet of his own with it.

So, Trump went to Russia in the 1980s, therefore Hillary Clinton is the legitimate president-elect of the United States? Doesn’t make sense.

Mohajer’s fourth point is basic Democratic Party and Clinton campaign talking points about FBI director James Comey revealing the reopening of the criminal probe into Clinton’s illicit home-brew email server set up in violation of State Department guidelines. He claims it was a violation of protocol for Comey to inform Congress he had reopened the investigation, which Comey did a few days before the election upon discovering new information from a computer connected to Clinton aide Huma Abedin discovered after Abedin’s husband, disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner, (D-NY) came under investigation for communicating sexually explicit messages with a minor. Comey was put in an impossible spot, but it’s again not his fault he had to investigate this stuff or had to inform Congress of it. If Hillary Clinton never set up an illicit email server in the basement of her upstate New York home—and instead followed State Department guidelines—and Weiner never exchanged lewd messages with underage women, maybe Comey would not have been in this spot just a few days before the election.

Despite never actually proving in any way, shape, or form that Hillary Clinton ever won the election, Mohajer then goes on to claim that the court system must now intervene to take away the presidency from legitimate president-elect Donald J. Trump—who will be inaugurated later this week.

“It is well-established that in shaping equity decrees, federal courts are vested with broad discretionary powers, and a plethora of case law exists stating that courts may intervene to protect the integrity of free and fair elections,” Mohajer writes.

He cites a variety of court cases arguing that the courts have precedent—and authority and duty—to overturn Trump’s legitimate election as president.

“Did Russian hacking or Comey’s letter occur to benefit one candidate and disadvantage the other? Could either have affected the outcome of the election, such that the certified vote count was an unreliable indicator of the will of the electorate?” he adds. “If the answer is yes, then calling for judicial intervention and a new election, no matter how outlandish or uncharted, is our civic duty. Americans must resist our tendency to force closure and do what is necessary to protect our democracy, or we are doomed to relive the mistakes of the past.”

While an editor for the Huffington Post confirms that contributor pieces like this go through no editor before publication, senior editorial leadership at the publication is now undoubtedly aware of this piece as confirmed to Breitbart News–and they’re doing nothing about it. And so the meltdown of the left–and the media–continues.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.