Alex Mohajer, writing for the Huffington Post, says "the evidence is clear. Hillary Clinton is the rightful president-elect". His reasoning? He agrees with Rep John Lewis (SWTD #369) that, if not for Putin's "influence campaign", HRC would have won. In addition Mohajer points to FBI director Comey's meddling; a violation of the Hatch Act (SWTD #356).
Another factor Mohajer and Lewis (apparently) overlook would be Kris Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck. A voter disenfranchisement election fraud scheme (DSD #54). I think it was all three (Putin, Comey and Kasich) that contributed to HRC's "loss", and that if any of the three had not occurred HRC would be president.
Although, IMO it was Kobach that had the greatest impact. I might be wrong, but I do think that in ANY discussion of how the 2016 POTUS election was stolen, Kobach should definitely be included. Along with Putin and Comey. They were all BIG factors that point to the election being stolen.
Regarding Mohajer writing that "courts must use the broad discretionary powers with which they are vested to enjoin an illegitimate president from taking office"... I wish. But that's not going to happen, unfortunately.
I mean, gwb took office after the scotus appointed him over the rightful winner, Al Gore. Gore being another Democrat who was elected but did not serve. Election results are never reversed. Republicans know this, which is why any cheating they can pull off is "fair" as far as they are concerned.
In this segment (see video below) Thom asks "can Republican get elected without fraud & treason?". The answer according to Thom is NO. Thom says that "since Dwight Eisenhower left the presidency in 1961 - 5 different Republicans have been President of the United States. And every single one of them - from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush - have been illegitimate".
Watch the video for Thom's reasoning regarding the other frauds... my commentary here concerns only George W. bush's theft of the 2000 election from the rightful president, Al Gore.
Thom Hartmann: ...the most recent illegitimate Republican president - George W. Bush - the man who was given the White House by five right-wing justices on the Supreme Court. In the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision in 2000 that stopped the Florida recount and handed George W. Bush the presidency - Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his opinion:
The counting of votes ... does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election".
I guess denying the guy who ACTUALLY won the most votes in Florida - Al Gore - the presidency - did not constitute "irreparable harm" to Scalia. And I guess it wasn't important to mention that Scalia's son worked for the law firm that was defending George W. Bush before the high court.
Just like it wasn't important to mention that Justice Clarence Thomas's wife worked on the Bush transition team and was busy accepting resumes from people who would serve in the Bush White House as long as her husband stopped the recount in Florida... which he did.
And more than a year after the election - a consortium of newspapers including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and USA Today did their own recount in Florida - manually counting every vote in a process that took almost a year - and concluded that Al Gore did indeed win the presidency in 2000.
As the November 12th, 2001 article in The New York Times read:
If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won.
That little bit of info was slipped into the seventeenth paragraph of the Times story on purpose so that it would attract as little attention as possible around the nation.
Why? because the 9/11 attacks had just happened - and journalists feared that hitting people with the plain truth that George W. Bush actually lost the election would further hurt a nation that was already in crisis.
The NYT article referenced above is not available online, although a Google search reveals MANY references to it. One example would be a 5/28/2008 Alternet Article titled "New York Times Perpetuates the Myth that George Bush Won the 2000 Election" which reveals that the original NYT article was by Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder... and YES, says Gore won.
Although 7 years (and change) later a movie reviewer for the NYT got it wrong. Alessandra Stanley, in a 5/23/2008 review of the HBO television movie Recount, wrote "Mr. Bush would have come out slightly ahead, even if all the votes counted throughout the state had been retallied".
Nope. Under FL law a recount should have been performed. Larry Beinhart of AlterNet writes "the Florida court... ordered a recount. Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in and shut the recounts down".
But the votes were recounted later by a consortium of newspapers (as Thom recounts)... and, concerning that recount, Larry Beinhart wrote "it took almost a year and cost more than a million dollars. [In the end the conclusion was that] Al Gore got more legal, countable votes than George Bush".
There you have it... Al Gore was elected to the White House as our 43rd POTUS. But he did not serve because the Conservative justices of the SCOTUS stopped the recount and anointed George W. bush.
Video: Excerpt from the 7/18/2011 airing of Thom Hartmann's "The Big Picture"... Thom asks "can Republicans get elected without fraud & treason? (9:01). Section concerning the theft of the 2000 election starts at 4:45... and ends at 6:58.
These two comments concern the fact that Al Gore was elected president of the United States by the American people following the conclusion of voting in November of 2000. Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 votes (50,999,897 votes for Gore versus 50,456,002 votes for bush).
And, as it turns out, Gore won the popular vote in Florida as well, which would have given him the state (and its electoral college votes). If only the Conservative Supreme Court justices had not violated the Constitution and circumvented the will of the people by stopping the recount and anointing bush (Justice Stevens: Bush v. Gore Decision Violated Constitution).
See 2nd comment below for info concerning Al Gore winning by carrying FL... when the votes were properly counted.
Bugliosi says, "On December 12th, 2000, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court put an end to the recounting of presidential votes in Florida, thus assuring that George W. Bush would win the election. This action by the Court's majority ... was a "judicial coup d'tat" that stole the election from U.S. citizens and simply handed the presidency over to the Court's guy, a conservative Republican like themselves. It was also treasonous, asserts Bugliosi... the five justices are "criminals in the very truest sense of the word"...
This description of what occurred is one I agree with completely.
Robert Parry, writing for Consortium News said, "Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes".
