Posted on 09/11/2016 9:00:39 AM PDT by drewh
Hillary Clinton falling ill at a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks Sunday morning will catapult questions about her health from the ranks of conservative conspiracy theory to perhaps the central debate in the presidential race over the coming days.
"Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen," spokesman Nick Merrill said. "During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter's apartment and is feeling much better."
What that statement leaves out is that a) it came 90 minutes after Clinton left the ceremony b) reporters -- or even a reporter -- were not allowed to follow her and c) the temperature in New York City at the time of Clinton's overheating was in the low 80s. (A heat wave over the eastern United States broke last night/this morning.)
Whether Clinton likes it or not, her "overheating" comes at a very bad time for her campaign. Thanks to the likes of Rudy Giuliani and a small but vocal element of the Republican base, talk of Clinton's health had been bubbling over the past week -- triggered by a coughing episode she experienced during a Labor Day rally.
That talk was largely confined to Republicans convinced that Clinton has long been hiding some sort of serious illness. I wrote dismissively of that conspiracy theory in this space last week, noting that Clinton had been given an entirely clean bill of health by her doctors after an episode in which she fainted, suffered a concussion and then a blood clot in late 2012 and early 2013.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The thing that chapped the hides of the Bernouts was the stacked deck of super delegates. Do you know if they would become unbound in such an situation? Is it anyone the “DNC” (whoever all that entails) decides?
Thanks
The DNC is a large committee made up of people from the state party organizations and some permanent Washington folks. I don’t see much sentiment for Bernie in that group. His campaign was an insurgency that failed, as opposed to Trump’s insurgency, which succeeded.
“A high humidity environment - well let’s just say I don’t adapt well to it.”
We’ll remember that when you are running for President of the United States. Until then, its relevance is zero.
Man, can I relate to that. Having lived most of my life at that point in California.
My first trip ever to DC was in 1990 to "move in" my daughter to Georgetown U. We had reserved a room at a downtown hotel, in late August. The airport wasn't bad, we had flown into "National" Airport.
Getting out of the taxi at our destination was like hitting a wall of heat and humidity. Even inside the air conditioned taxi I had soaked through my clothes with perspiration. Being not used to it it was a week of hell outside the hotel, trying to take in at least some of the main historical sites.
Subsequent trips to DC, 8 total, thus far, have been tolerable, forewarned is forearmed.
I even learned to shovel snow, for the first time the weekend after Omugabe's first inauguration.
As a side note, My daughter eventually spent her Junior year at the Sorbonne's Paris V campus, and her apartment room mate in northern Paris turned out to be an Air Force Lieutenant in the U.S. Air force. We became permanent friends, and as fate would have it, that lieutenant is now a full colonel, who was in the Pentagon on 911, on the opposite side of where the koranimals flew the airliner. She has been posted all over the world since 1993, and I have been unable to chat with her about the events of that day.
Not the sort of chat I would prefer having through emails or other correspondence. But I will get to her sooner or later.
The real point to be taken from this is that if Her Majesty can’t handle the rigors of a campaign and the heat for a ceremony that everyone else was, how can she handle the considerably more brutal rigors of holding the office of President?
So Trump could win the election and the electors could give it to YEB? How scary is that.
Scary, perfectly legal, but politically dangerous. Revolutions have happened for less.
In a time when the citizens are nutty enough to vote for Barack Obama TWICE anything can happen.
I think Hillary dropping out would garner a certain amount of sympathy votes for any replacement nominee.
The democrats campaign would be “Don’t let Hillary down.”
Sort of like “Let’s win this one for the Gipper!”
Instead it would be “Let’s win this one for the Dripper.”
Big problem with that: you would have lawsuits out the wazoo because people with early voting would have already voted then a change was made. MANY (including Dems) will say, “No, I wouldn’t have voted for that person.”
I agree AFTER the election you can have this change-—but not in process. So if anyone IS changed out, vote counters would be required to put one set of names in one stack, the next in another, and so on. It would have the impact of a massive third party, not to mention the incredible confusion to (some) voters.
Finally, it’s one thing to go along with replacing a dead candidate. It’s quite another to replace a living one, especially if she doesn’t want to go, especially if VOTES HAVE ALREADY BEEN VOTED. No, I don’t see it happening.
As for a voter saying, "I would have voted differently had the change been in effect when I early voted," it would be the same as if a voter said, "If I had known about this latest scandal, I would have voted differently." Once the vote has been submitted -- early or otherwise -- the vote stands. There is no legal recourse for a pre-scandal ballot or a post-scandal ballot. According to law, your vote is for electors pledged to a party's ticket.
I could see major political issues, but not legal issues. The most I could see is a state legislature intervening to "correct" the names for the slate of party electors.
Very interesting post. Thank you.
No, it’s not nearly the same. If a totally different person is on there, you’re just not going to win the “legal” argument that “No, you’ve voting for an elector.” That’s a Ted Cruz-type move, but it wouldn’t hold up in the court of public justice-—even among a lot of Dems. So if state legislatures (not OH, cause that’s R, not AZ cause that’s R, don’t know right now what FL and NC and VA are, but right there are the only ones you’d have to worry about) do “correct the names” of the electors, the suits would claim that in fact people voted for different electors already.
You cannot legally get around the fact that VOTING HAS ALREADY STARTED and Bush v. Gore will be the yardstick against which this stuff is measured.
The Constitution states that federal elections must be held on the same date, and we settled on our current date in 1841 (I think). This is why a Florida revote was constitutionally impossible in 2000. I even question if early voting is constitutional, but that's for the courts to decide if a challenge ever arises.
As to whether Hillary is replaced because she dies, becomes a vegetable due to a stroke, or leaves for other reasons of health, the legal situation is the same even if the political situations are different. Because of the wording of the Constitution, I have a hard time seeing how any body other than a state legislature would have jurisdiction to decide matters, no matter how many scofflaw courts, like the Florida Supreme Court, chose to claim jurisdiction. If I remember correctly, the Florida legislature had a slate of Bush/Cheney electors ready to go if the Florida Supreme Court continued its obstructionist behavior by the time the Safe Harbor Date came around.
Admittedly, law is one thing and politics another, but I have problems with your scenario. From a legal perspective, it's not intuitively obvious.
Sneaky, yet shrewd.
I don’t know how to answer: you agree the states are supreme on this; and that any votes for a dead person ( or one kicked off the ticket) would be null and void.
That is precisely my point. Courts would refuse to ratify the “early votes” which would deny the Dems multiple thousands of votes and count only new ballots. Dems lose. Those people sue based on Bush v. Gore saying they were deprived. They are right. But the only situation is a whole NEW revote.
Despite the “elector tweak” I don’t think you can get around Bush v. Gore. All vote based on same ballot or none do.
Very good advice, Laz.
In the case of early voting and a ticket change, either the votes are null or they count for the new ticket. So if you are right and the courts decide that the early votes arriving prior to the ticket change are null, first we have to figure out at which exact moment ballot segregation must occur. That's going to be a wonderful court fight.
Then we have redress, in which a revote is impossible due to the "same day" constitutional requirement. That means that there is no effective redress. This is where we see judges empretzeling the law to the point where it is not recognizable. I could see a huge court battle on toss-out versus count-it-as-the-new ticket.
This could make Bush v. Gore look like a Sunday picnic. I'm not sure how it would end up after a 4-4 Supreme Court tie.
Reference bump - Thanks!
Now we are getting on the same page. So, path of least resistance is precedence of Bush v Gore, i.e., no candidate substitution, no revote.
I don’t see any legal or practical situation where the Dems win this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
