ABC chief legal analyst and Mediaite founder Dan Abrams said Tuesday on his SiriusXM radio show that in 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton could have made a better arguments for voter fraud than former President Donald Trump did in the litigation following the 2020 presidential election.
Abrams said, “Imagine it’s 2016. Trump has just lost the election by exactly the same numbers that Hillary Clinton lost. Same numbers in the Electoral College same numbers in the popular vote. Let us assume that Donald Trump has won the popular vote in 2016, and he has lost the electrical college. I promise you the first argument that Donald Trump, in that hypothetical, and his supporters would be saying is, ‘How can we possibly allow the will of the people to be ignored,’ And there is a real, legal argument that you could make that does not abolish the Electoral College and it was an argument that various law professors were encouraging Hillary Clinton to make in the wake of 2016. Basically, the argument was that states that have the winner take all system of Electors deny the minority of voters within each state any representation. Basically arguing that every state should have to portion its Electoral votes based on the vote count. The argument goes it would be an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause. You could even cite Bush v Gore. It’s a real argument. I don’t think it’s a winning argument, and I’m glad she didn’t make it. But it’s a stronger argument, in my view, than the argument that has been litigated and lost, again and again, and again by Team Trump and his allies. That’s argument number one.”
He continued, “Argument number two— you have been hearing many Trump supporters talking about statistical annalist of the results. Hillary Clinton was urged by a number of top computer scientists to call for a recount of vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in 2016. They believed there was a questionable trend of Clinton doing worst in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners. They said Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked could’ve been hacked. You’re going to say, ‘Wow, I didn’t know that,’ Why didn’t you know about it? Because Hillary Clinton and her team didn’t amplify it because it was an unproven, theoretical thing. That’s why you didn’t hear about it. But if Donald Trump had been in Hillary Clinton’s position, you tell me. How big a deal would that be right now?”
He added, “These are the same sorts of arguments that Donald Trump and his supporters are making now. And I am glad that Hillary Clinton did not make them. Most of them are weak. But on the whole, when you talk about someone who won the popular vote and where the Russians interfered in the election and tried to help your opponent if that were Donald Trump, I could at least understand why he’d be pissed. But he’s got none of that.”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN