Reactions to the outcome of Election 2016: treason &c.

::::::::

"There is a lot wrong with what the Democrats did, including a bad strategy and a weak candidate." (Professor David Schultz in an email 11/11/16)

One of the mistakes made by the Democrats was to place their shoptalk onto a hackable server, something we all do, assuming somehow that we are immune because obscure and harmless, or some such combination of uninteresting factors. This was not so in the case of the Russian/Trump invasion of the DNC database, a huge target that revealed . . . secrets and, oddly enough, stratagems for thwarting the GOP's efforts--research into particulars about it!

They didn't want Bernie to win. They were working toward Hillary's victory.

And some of these stratagems involved, hmmm, fixing election results, according to many, though this often-successful tactic showed up not on the hacked-into database but instead in reality. The hacked-into database revealed off-color strategies.

And in case you're wondering whether we EI (election integrity) activists are too imaginative and poor sports to boot, I read that when Hamas won the elections in Palestine Hillary was disappointed and wondered why no efforts had been exerted to thwart this result.

There's proof enough for me. But backtrack a bit. I wrote that Russia and Trump colluded in the successful effort to hack into the DNC database. COLLUDED. Trump proudly acknowledged that.

Now, according to the U.S. Constitution, Article III, section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Trump has committed treason according to the U.S. Constitution. Now, are we blind or already afraid of Trump even while President Obama still occupies the oval office?

This reality is staring us in the face. Are we blind and deaf? Or scared?

Trump still threatens to throw Hillary into jail once he's in office for committing a crime he isn't bothering former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice about.

And Hillary threatened nothing but politics as usual and the status quo.

If we ignore such treason now, we will have no one but ourselves to blame for the other grim realities Trump is spelling out day by day far more clearly than his pre-election drivel ever ascertained.

*****

I feel guilty criticizing Hillary at all as her Wellesley "little sister," an official designation that lives on at my alma mater, having graduated two years behind her class. I feel genuine remorse in expressing such views, but substantial evidence backs them up: the New Hampshire primary in 2008 was the first venue for theorizing such backstage activity, though some believe that the GOP wanted Hillary to win at that time because Obama was simply a stronger candidate. He ended up winning all of the HCPB (hand-counted-paper ballots)-using jurisdictions while she won all of those using electronic machinery, optical scanners. The paper ballots were found to have been handled quite unprofessionally, as a wonderful documentary by Bev Harris proved, so even hand recounts might not have revealed much. The proof was in the outcome.

Similarly, primaries in 2016 yielded wins by Bernie of a majority of caucus-based (i.e., using hand-counted paper ballots) primaries, while Hillary won most of the primaries conducted with electronic systems, optical scanners as well as the even-more-despised DREs. Now in Iowa, a caucus state where results were painfully close in some areas, results were determined--I kid you not--by a coin toss. Hillary won in the closest primary in the history Iowa's Democratic caucuses.

And in Election 2016, experts have already determined that the election was rigged, to use Trump's terminology, but that turned out to be his veiled threat that his own people were rigging the election. Gregory Palast and Jonathan Simon, among others, have revealed some tactics: cross-checking registration lists and exit polling results that contradict computer-generated results. And of course, there were long lines of those who thought they could vote if they made it to the lines before closing time; then there were others tricked out of their franchise in mostly red states but more often swing states. Even a blue state like New York contains areas densely populated by minorities that were included by the Voting Rights Act, section 5, among areas required to preclear all possibly discriminatory measures they wanted to legalize. And things weren't so kosher there this time around, after section 5 had been gutted in 2013 by SCOTUS.

And things weren't so kosher in many other places, as I've documented above.

But amid all this and more, including my supposition that tampering with election results must have been done by both major parties, an authority I frequently consult in crisis situations for calm judgments and truths that do not occur to me, stabbed me with a simple cause that rises above the cesspool of American politics:

HILLARY WAS A WEAK CANDIDATE.

I admire her as a strong, brilliant, highly motivated and stateswomanly figure. She has contributed so much to alleviating discriminatory suffering among oppressed classes, as has the Clinton Foundation, warts and all.

But her speeches are streams of talking points. She herself admits that she lacks the charisma of reassuring spontaneity that served her husband so well, AND DONALD TRUMP, even at his loosest, most disgusting moments. The man could think on his feet, and presidents need to be able to do that. He had to be forced to read the teleprompter when he did.

I agree that Trump was a stronger candidate though, of course, not the better one. And his personality stands in stark contrast to President Obama's genteel, intellectual, soft-spoken sanity. Trump is a madman and I shudder as each day of his tenure approaches and each hint of his actual policy plans is revealed. And each is more horrifying than the next.

He has promised not to touch Medicare and social security (promised, shudder), but House Speaker Paul Ryan already has his eyes on Medicare. There may be a million-seniors march on Washington to follow up the million-women one planned. And all of those canes, walkers, and wheelchairs are bound to wield an even stronger impact than all of those women, for the simple reason that the numbers of women who voted for each major party hardly differed at all from previous results at the presidential level. But how many senior citizens do you know who lack preexisting conditions? Now there's a huge demographic no one can contradict.

Hillary was the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party. Think of other firsts: Rep. Geraldine Ferraro was scared to death of press, answering them through bared teeth and shrinking away from walking next to Sen. Mondale, as if this would suggest a liaison. How I admired her guts to have stepped into this position and survived it, such as she did. Other woman candidates for such high offices will do better. Sen. Elizabeth Warren will be a far stronger presidential candidate than Hillary was, if she is nominated by the Democrats in 2020, which seems likely--if we all survive until then. Meanwhile, I'm pinning hopes on the color shift that usually characterizes the next midterm election, so that Congress may turn bluer in 2018. Again, if we're still around then and if democracy survives that long, such as we have it.

It's not that Hillary stayed too long at the party; it's not even that her record is tarnished, and it is. And once again, I hugely admire her courage and guts and multiple contributions to the welfare of disadvantaged populations and single-minded ambition to break the glass ceiling--literally at the Javits Center on November 8. Would they have broken it literally? I think anger tended in that direction once the actual results came in.

But, according to Professor David Schultz of Hamline University and the University of Minnesota, where he holds endowed chairs and has won countless awards as a hugely prolific scholar as well as wonderful instructor, HILLARY WAS A WEAK CANDIDATE.

I greatly look forward to her further participation in the future of this poor country and the poor world by extension; greatly look forward to her insights and contributions and assistance in the f*cked-up (excuse me) society that the future dangles before us. Her continued presence will be hugely reassuring, as will that of Presidents Obama, Clinton, and Carter and the many other statespersons and heroic activists who will continue to guide us and inject as much sanity and stability and idealism into our future as possible.

The whole world thanks Hillary for her efforts and aspirations.

And many of us mourn the untimely (to the day!) passing of Tom Hayden, militant and heroic activist, pioneer, and leader that he was, as well as huge inspiration.

How might he have steadied our zig-zag course into the future? He would have risen above us all, and probably died in that effort.

He probably would have risen above us all.

Others survive to lead us as he might have. Rev. Jesse Jackson, help save the world. Save the world and show us best how to follow you toward survival and the future we need.

Rev. Jackson, we turn to you and know that you'll be here for us.

Authors Website: http://www.wordsunltd.com

Authors Bio:

Marta Steele is an author/editor/blogger who has been writing for Opednews.com since 2006. She is also author of the 2012 book "Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: The Election Integrity Movement's Nonstop Battle to Win Back the People's Vote, 2000-2008" (Columbus, Free Press) and a member of the Election Integrity movement since 2001. Her original website, WordsUnLtd.com, first entered the blogosphere in 2003. She recently became a senior editor for Opednews.com. She has in the past taught college and worked as a full-time as well as freelance reporter. She has been a peace and election integrity activist since 1999. Her undergraduate and graduate educational background are in Spanish, classical philology, and historical and comparative linguistics. Her biography is most recently listed in "Who's Who in America" 2019 and in 2018 she received a Lifetime Achievement Award from Who's Who.