One of the more depressing and least-discussed truths of the 2016 U.S. election is this: No matter who won, voters were going to be stuck with a conspiracy theorist as the commander in chief.
President Trump clearly enjoys hints, allegations, and things left unsaid. But not enough attention has been paid to the fact that two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is likewise a fountain of innuendo, paranoia, and misinformation.
During an appearance this week on the Daily Show With Trevor Noah, for example, the former secretary of state floated the theory that Trump simply may refuse to leave office should he lose his reelection bid.
“I think it is a fair point to raise as to whether or not, if he loses, he’s going to go quietly or not,” the failed 2016 presidential candidate said. “And we have to be ready for that.”
Clinton did not leave it at just that. She continued, explaining in detail an entire theory revolving around allegations of mail-in ballot fraud.
“There have been so many academic studies and other analyses, which point out that it’s just an inaccurate, fraudulent claim,” she said. “There isn’t that problem. All the games that are played … to try and keep the vote down — that’s the real danger to the integrity of our election, that combined with disinformation and misinformation and all the online shenanigans we saw in 2016.”
She has clearly thought about this. She has thought about this at length. Yet, despite the details of her theory, there is no evidence to support the notion that Trump would simply refuse to vacate the White House should he lose in November. After all, whatever happened to all those “sources say” stories claiming Trump did not even want to win the 2016 election? Now we are to believe that he would need to be dragged from the Oval Office with his teeth marks still on the Resolute Desk?
Yes, the president is clearly intemperate. He has an ego the size of New York state. But a history of mean tweets does not constitute evidence that he will unlawfully try to stay in power after losing an election. A former presidential nominee and secretary of state should know better than to fan the flames of conspiracy theories this way. Clinton should require something a bit more than a gut feeling before conspiracy-mongering publicly about an unlawful coup.
Further, it is impossible to miss the irony in the fact that Hillary Clinton, who still cannot accept the results of the 2016 election, is the one warning this week that Trump may refuse to concede the 2020 election.
By the way, this is obviously not Clinton’s first foray into conspiracy theory territory. As it turns out, the lady who alleged in the 1990s that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was coming for her husband loves herself a good ghost story.
In March, for example, Clinton alleged that Facebook had been conspiring with the “right-wing echo chamber” to suppress stories about Super Tuesday in favor of news reports regarding her private emails.
Earlier, in October 2019, Clinton alleged that Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is a “Russian asset.” Clinton also claimed that the Republican Party has been “grooming” Gabbard for a third-party run.
The former secretary of state often repeats the theory alleging that failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who lost her election by more than 50,000 votes, was the victim of voter suppression. Save for a few anecdotes about long lines at voting stations in Democratic-controlled counties, there is truly nothing at all to support this claim.
There is also Clinton’s oft-repeated claim that the Russians stole the 2016 election for Trump. She has gone so far as to call the commander in chief an “illegitimate president.” Beyond social media meddling, Clinton has yet to supply evidence of what, exactly, the Russians did to make Americans vote for the Republican nominee.
There is more where this comes from, but you get the picture.
Members of the press often complain that it is terrible that a president should be a constant source of misinformation and innuendo. They are not wrong. But it’s no less depressing that, no matter who won in 2016, we were going to end up with a constant source of misinformation and innuendo in the Oval Office.
