NYT and WaPo Promote Ways to Dump Trump by Stephen Lendman
Scoundrel media anti-Trump bias was scandalous throughout the 2015-16 political season - unprecedented support for one candidate, Hillary, while inventing reasons to bash him.
Nothing in my memory since the 1940s approaches the disgraceful coverage during this political seasons race for the White House, concluded with Trumps surprise November triumph few expected.
Its over. He won. Hillary lost. Let it rest. Results wont change. Hell succeed Obama on January 20. Yet media scoundrels wont quit - nor Hillary supporter Jill Stein, continuing her futile recount scam going nowhere, on the phony pretext of seeking electoral integrity.
On December 6, The NYT asked how would the electoral college dump Donald Trump? Recounts wont work. That leaves one last-ditch opportunity to bar (him) from the White House - the Electoral College.
Suggesting it is advocacy, wanting Novembers result overturned, endorsing a coup detat, making democracy in America more fantasy-like than already.
All it takes is for 37 electors to withhold support. If neither he nor Hillary gets 270 Electoral College votes, House representatives get to choose from the three leading electoral vote-getters. Republican control means theyll likely go for Trump.
Hillary wont win (but if) faithless Republican and Democrat electors agree on (an alternate) Republican, Trump might be dumped, said The Times.
Nothing approaching this scheme ever happened before in the aftermath of a US election. The Times admitted pulling it off is a moon shot. Suggesting it borders on sedition or treason.
The Washington Post suggested a similar scheme. Like The Times, its practically promoting the dumping of Trump, saying Democrats best chance to prevent (him) from assuming the presidency is (by) throw(ing) their support behind another Republican
WaPo suggested Mitt Romney as one example, 2012 GOP nominee, not a candidate in 2016. If at least 37 Trump electors can be persuaded to dump him for an alternate choice, House members get to choose Obamas successor.
Admitting the scheme is a fools errand begs the obvious question. Why suggest it in the first place, especially because its tantamount to undermining how things turned out - the way banana republic elections are orchestrated.
Suggesting Trump poses a unique threat to the republic is repugnant given no evidence suggesting it. Hes held no previous public office on which to judge him.
Nor has he begun serving as president. He hasnt done anything yet, other than announce cabinet and other administration officials, most subject to Senate confirmation.
Judge him on policies he institutes once in office, not on disappointment over Hillarys defeat.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.