Jill Stein gets the hook

Some­one should tell Demo­cratic de­niers to go home, the funeral is over

The Washington Times Daily - - EDITORIAL -

Jill Stein, the Green Party can­di­date for pres­i­dent, got a re­minder Mon­day that her 15 min­utes of fame are up. If pol­i­tics were just a lit­tle bit more like vaude­ville, she would have got the hook weeks ago.

The lime­light can be in­tox­i­cat­ing, which is why term lim­its are to mem­bers of Congress as gar­lic to Drac­ula. Ms. Stein has re­ceived more me­dia at­ten­tion — and more cam­paign cash — over the past few weeks for her hy­per-quixotic re­count de­mands than dur­ing the en­tire course of her White House bid.

In dis­miss­ing Ms. Stein’s de­mand for a hand re­count of pa­per bal­lots in Penn­syl­va­nia, U.S. Dis­trict Court Judge Paul Di­a­mond fired a broad­side, in­tended or not, across the bow of ir­ra­tional Democrats who are con­vinced that Vladimir Putin is the only rea­son Hil­lary Clin­ton is not to­day choos­ing a Cabi­net.

The Democrats, still in the ag­o­nies of post-elec­tion stress dis­or­der, have tied their hopes for re­vers­ing Don­ald Trump’s vic­tory to the no­tion that rogue Rus­sians hacked into the na­tion’s elec­tion sys­tems on Mr. Trump’s be­half, if not at his be­hest. These Democrats suf­fered a sec­ond set­back Mon­day when the of­fi­cial re­sults of a re­count in Wis­con­sin showed Mr. Trump’s mar­gin of vic­tory grew by 131 votes.

Ms. Stein called the Nov. 8 ex­er­cise “a hack-rid­dled elec­tion,” and she may be right, and the hack is Ms. Stein her­self. To his shame, Pres­i­dent Obama lent cre­dence to the non­sense by or­der­ing a “full review” of the sup­posed Rus­sian hack­ing. John McCain of Ari­zona and his echo, Lind­sey Gra­ham of South Carolina, joined Demo­cratic calls for an in­quiry.

Judge Di­a­mond, who was ap­pointed to the bench by Pres­i­dent George W. Bush, said the idea that hack­ing al­tered the out­come in Penn­syl­va­nia “bor­ders on the ir­ra­tional.” His rul­ing fol­lows a de­ci­sion by U.S. Dis­trict Court Judge Mark Gold­smith, an Obama ap­pointee, to dis­miss a re­quest for a re­count in Michi­gan.

Judge Di­a­mond found “at least six sep­a­rate grounds” for dis­miss­ing the re­quest for a re­count in Penn­syl­va­nia. “Most im­por­tantly,” he said, “there is no cred­i­ble ev­i­dence that any ‘hack’ oc­curred, and com­pelling ev­i­dence that Penn­syl­va­nia’s vot­ing sys­tem was not in any way com­pro­mised.”

Grant­ing Ms. Stein’s re­quest, he said, would have made it im­pos­si­ble for Penn­syl­va­nia to cer­tify its pres­i­den­tial elec­tors by the fed­er­ally man­dated dead­line, Dec. 13. That in turn would have re­sulted in “in­ex­cus­ably dis­en­fran­chis­ing some 6 mil­lion Penn­syl­va­nia vot­ers” by pre­vent­ing the state’s elec­tors from vot­ing in the Elec­toral Col­lege on Dec. 19.

“Dr. Stein has re­peat­edly stated that she has sought a Penn­syl­va­nia re­count to en­sure that ev­ery vote counts,” Judge Di­a­mond said. “Grant­ing her later-than-last-minute re­quest for re­lief, how­ever, could well en­sure that no Penn­syl­va­nia vote counts. Such a re­sult would be both out­ra­geous and com­pletely un­nec­es­sary.”

Ms. Stein is play­ing an ob­vi­ous game. To­gether with the hand­ful of “faith­less elec­tors” who vow not to honor their obli­ga­tion and duty to cast their bal­lots next week for the can­di­date who won their re­spec­tive states on Nov. 8, Ms. Stein’s ef­fort is doomed, any­way.

If Mr. Trump, by su­per­nat­u­ral mir­a­cle, can’t get 270 elec­toral votes, the elec­tion would be de­cided in the U.S. House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, where each state gets one vote. The Repub­li­cans con­trol the House. Where does Ms. Stein think she can go next? She should come to terms with the fact that, as good as she thinks her act may be, she will never play the Palace.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.