To The Electoral College: You Cannot Elect Hillary Clinton

From:,  by Steve Berman,  on Oct 28, 2016


America finds itself in a bind. We’ve managed to elevate two people as the standard-bearers of our major political parties, neither of whom is fit to serve as president. One is a misogynist vulgarian consumed with his own self-interest, and the other is under active FBI investigation for felonies which would have landed any other person in federal prison.

The director of the FBI admitted Hillary Clinton’s guilt publicly before the nation in July. He testified before Congress that she committed criminal acts in the way she mishandled highly classified information. She then made a series of public claims about her private email server, all of which were refuted by the FBI, as Director James Comey was forced to admit under oath before Congress.

The reason given for the Department of Justice not to prefer charges, hire a special prosecutor, or refer the evidence to a grand jury is that no prosecutor would have charged a former secretary of state, or cabinet-level official, for the criminal acts Clinton committed. Essentially, she was declared above the law because one with such a high appointment is presumed to have a mindset of protecting America above their selfish interests.

Everything we’ve learned about Hillary and Bill Clinton argues against that presumption. They used Bill’s prior position as president to create a network of power, wealth, and influence worldwide. They used a charity organization and its attendant perks and privileges to pump foreign donors for money in exchange for access to U.S. government officials and favors. They did this for their own personal enrichment and plans to eventually return to power (as in the presidency).

Now the FBI has reopened the investigation due to even more troubling emails–possibly thousands of them–gleaned while investigating the disgraced husband–a former congressman–of Clinton’s top aide in both her capacity as secretary of state and at the Clinton Foundation.

Obviously, something is seriously amiss.

How could the United States of America, the world’s model for peaceful, democratic and lawful transfer of power, put someone like Hillary Clinton into office? This isn’t Panama, or the Philippines, or Uganda, or Albania, or Ukraine. No offense to any of those countries, but they don’t have permanent seats on the UN Security Council. This isn’t Israel, who has jailed its former prime minister Ehud Olmert. And this isn’t China or Russia, who sit on the opposite spectrum of all that America stands for.

If America succumbs to despotism by electing Clinton and inaugurating her as president, then the oath of office loses all meaning. As bad as Donald Trump is, he can at least take the oath of office with a cleaner conscience than Clinton. He can at least try to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (although he is manifestly unfit to do it). Clinton cannot, because she represents someone who is above the law, protected from her actions for life as the ancient Roman Dictators were–immune to all challenge in office and pardoned for life afterward.

Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment. Bill Clinton survived impeachment.  Inaugurating Hillary Clinton into office would be akin to Richard Nixon running for president after Gerald Ford pardoned him, and winning while John Mitchell, Jeb Magruder, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean, G. Gordon Liddy, and Charles Colson were still serving their sentences in federal prison.

It would be a travesty of the highest order. It would seriously damage America’s reputation, beyond salvage, forever.

In just 9 days, Americans will vote and decide, state by state, who will win electoral votes in the electoral college. Our founders set up this electoral college system–and spent more time arguing this one single point during the constitutional convention than any other–to prevent a despot from coming to power and destroying our republic.

As electors, I’m writing to you. You might think this is just a titular position, an honorific for which you bear no responsibility. But that’s not true and you know it. The Constitution itself calls for you to perform a very sacred duty to your nation. You cannot allow a person who was under federal investigation for what amounts to a betrayal of America’s secrets and is now again under investigation for the same crimes after being given a hall pass in July, to become president.

Donald Trump will likely still lose this election on November 8th because millions of people have already cast their votes. Because many people feel that there’s no other choice except to elect Clinton–that Trump’s simply too scary and extreme. Because many people think that voting third party is throwing away a vote. Because many who agree with Clinton’s policies are willing to accept the permanent loss of American stature among nations, and our relegation to “just another corrupt country” in the world’s eye to maintain their own lust for social policies that favor their lifestyles.

If Trump loses on November 8th, and Evan McMullin wins at least one state, by the 12th Amendment making him eligible for the presidency if no candidate achieves a straight majority of 270 electoral votes, then your duty must be to throw the election to the House of Representatives.

You owe this duty to Americans who voted before they had a chance to learn the extent of Clinton’s corruption and now can’t change their votes. You owe this duty to the nation as direct representatives of our founders to preserve the republic. Even if Clinton wins more than 270 electoral votes and McMullin wins none, you must throw the vote to the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives is the only democratically qualified body to decide an election between two unfit candidates. They represent the voters of each state, and the caucuses of their respective parties who placed these unacceptable choices before America. At worst, they will deadlock and either Mike Pence or Tim Kaine, as chosen by the Senate, will become Acting President. That option is exponentially better than either of the two at the top of the ticket, both of whom should have stepped down before now.

I know it’s a terrible burden, and it’s easy to just say “the people have spoken” and be done with it, but you know that’s not how the founders wanted this to happen. Why bother even having electors, or a Constitution, if everything has become ceremonial and proforma? The job of an elector is neither ceremonial nor is it proforma. It exists for such a time as this.

We call it a “faithless elector” when an elector chooses to vote differently than the popular vote of their state. But in this case, it’s a faithless elector who abrogates the Constitutional duty to preserve the United States in favor of a party or person who wants to rule above the law. It’s a dereliction of duty to simply blame the voters, or claim the system is rigged, or give in to corruption.

The only solution is to keep both candidates under 270 electoral votes and let the House of Representatives decide. It will be on their heads if we put a potential felon in the Oval Office, who would enter the presidency with actual crimes on her rap sheet, and a history of betraying our secrets to potential enemies. A person who would not be eligible for even the lowest security clearance were she not elected or politically appointed to a position requiring it.

You cannot elect Hillary Clinton president.


I liked this article and I liked Mr. Berman’s points about the damage that will be done to the United States’ reputation as a nation of laws and our precept that “no one is above the law.”

By now, those paying attention in other nations around the world must know about the three decades of accusations that surround Hillary Clinton and how she acts as if she is above the law. If she were elected president, how could her history not taint the office of the president? Even Donald Trump’s personality wouldn’t damage the U.S. in the world’s eyes as much as an unindicted criminal like Hillary Clinton.

I wonder how many patriotic Americans who genuinely cherish the country would be proud to call Hillary Clinton Mrs. President?

Damn few I’ll bet.





Categories: Political

Tags: ,

6 replies

  1. Steve Berman is right as far as what it would mean for the country if Hillary wins, but he is trying to apply a thinking person’s solution to problems created by unthinking people, and those unthinking people (Rush Limbaugh’s infamous “low-information voters) are not going to understand or accept his reasoning. Regardless of its legality, this would be perceived as a coup by the electors on behalf of Donald Trump, and it would end the century-long, bloodless coup that’s been waged by the Left as we move on to the next phase: the violent struggle for power and control. In other words, there would be blood. What he’s proposing is sort of what the Ted Cruz camp was trying to do within the Republican Party when they used the rules to try and secure delegates and get them to vote their brains rather than be a rubber-stamp for the KoolAid-drunk electorate. We all saw how well that went over.

    If the voters do not stand tall and reject the Clinton corruption of their own accord, there will be no non-violent resolution.


  2. I’m for a straight-up popular vote for POTUS. The odds are better at this point that a true conservative would win in a three or four-way race. The opposition — leftist, progressive. statists — have managed to skew the EC by flooding Red states with economic refugees from blue states, who are then replaced in those states by refugees and illegals from 3rd-world nations to keep them blue. The result, electorally, is that “blue states” remain blue, red states have become purple and there aren’t enough flat out red states remaining to win the EC.


  3. Our Founders had the best intentions when creating the EC, but since then it’s been degraded and politicized and it’s doubtful they care much about their constitutional duties. Nobody follows the laws and rules anymore.

    Having the House decide who’s to be our president is almost as scary as Hillary becoming the president. Many in Congress have voiced their displeasure with Trump as the nominee and I could see Paul Ryan and some of the others choosing her over Trump.


  4. Ugh, this is so true… Thanks for sharing!


  5. Well, Garnet, I’ve gotta say that I think he’s way out in left field on this idea.

    Berman’s thesis that the Founders created the EC as some kind of supernumerary bastion against a “bad” candidate or election is simply crazy. The EC was created as the mechanism to ensure that a few heavily populated states couldn’t completely dominate elections and make less-populated states moot in the process. It was a distribution and dilution of power, plain and simple.

    The issue at the time was that a couple of states, like New York or Pennsylvania, could dictate to the other eleven states who would be President based solely on the fact that they had a huge number of voters compared to the other states. In other words, it was the alternative to a national popular vote count, or plebiscite.

    There’s absolutely no way they were going to create some body that could simply ignore the expressed will of the voters at their own discretion. That’s nuts! Would they have gone to all the effort of creating such a distributive mechanism just to turn around and give it essentially oligarchical power to act completely independently?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: