[flamble]

Hillary Clinton conceded immediately, and the Democratic party did not launch a wave of legal challenges to the election results. The argument that the extreme Russiagate types were making was that Russian agents and bots on social media had convinced people to vote for Trump. There were none of these unbelievably absurd claims about manufactured ballots etc.

[refurb]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

” Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.”

Sept 2019

[boomboomsubban]

I doubt anyone would object to Trump talking about how the election was stolen in 2022.

[flamble]

I would "object" to Trump doing so in the sense that I would judge it to be the rationalizing behaviour of an egomaniac. Which is exactly my reaction to the linked statements by Hillary Clinton.

It is still absurd to act like there is an equivalence between her claiming that Russian interference misled voters into choosing the "wrong" candidate, vs. Trump (a) claiming that ballots were manufactured, altered or tampered with and that actual voting infrastructure and processes are corrupt, (b) having his legal team launch a bunch of frivolous lawsuits in various states, and (c) pressuring the secretary of state of an electorally-close state to overturn election results.

Clinton's statements, as overblown as they may have been, were just an accusation of unfairness, not calling for the results to be overturned and the loser installed in office. All of the #resistance rhetoric was about the need to defeat Trump through the electoral process, or through parliamentary procedures (based on his actions after taking office). Again, there is a fundamental difference between claiming that voters were lied to, and claiming that the government itself directly interfered in the voting process without ANY remotely credible evidence to back that claim.

Trying to equate the two situations because they both involved the use of the word "illegitimate" is beyond laughable.

[refurb]

Wooosh.

That’s not the point.

Clinton claims election is stolen. Uncritical article written.

Trump claims election is stolen? Obvious coup attempt and a need to curtail freedoms.

[kevin_thibedeau]

One is a coordinated scheme to influence impressionable voters backed by evidence. The other is a claim of election fraud with zero evidence. Not the same thing.

[boomboomsubban]

If Trump claimed the election was stolen in 2022, nobody would accuse him of a coup attempt that needs freedoms curtailed. The treatment is different because the intention is different, Clinton was throwing mud while Trump seems to want to stay in power.

[refurb]

Clinton said the same thing from election night until now. What are you talking about?

[boomboomsubban]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-privately-conce...

She conceded hours after polls closed. 2019 likely was not the first time she criticized Trump's legitimacy, but the intention was always different.