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 season’s race for the White House, concluded with Trump’s surprise November triumph few expected.
It’s over. He won. Hillary lost. Let it rest. Results won’t change. He’ll succeed Obama on January 20. Yet media scoundrels won’t 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 won’t work. “That leaves one last-ditch opportunity to bar (him) from the White House” – the Electoral College.
Suggesting it is advocacy, wanting November’s result overturned, endorsing a coup d’etat, 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 they’ll likely go for Trump.
“Hillary won’t 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, it’s 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 Obama’s successor.
Admitting the scheme “is a fool’s errand” begs the obvious question. Why suggest it in the first place, especially because it’s 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. He’s held no previous public office on which to judge him.
Nor has he begun serving as president. He hasn’t 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 Hillary’s defeat.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.