Hillary Clinton diehards still are plotting a possible path to the Oval Office, a full year after President Trump was inaugurated and 15 months after she went down in flames in the 2016 presidential election. And that was her second failed bid for the presidency.
Newsweek tweeted Thursday, “Hillary Clinton could still become president if Russia probe finds conspiracy evidence.”
— Newsweek (@Newsweek) January 18, 2018
Cortney O’Brien, at Townhall, noted Newsweek “doesn’t seem to be letting go of the possibility that Hillary Clinton can still be president.”
“Relying on a theory first floated in October by Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman professor of law and leadership at Harvard Law School, the editors strike a painfully hopeful tone that the investigation into Russian collusion will bring President Trump down once and for all.”
O’Brien pointed out there has been “no evidence to prove Trump colluded with Russia to win the election, as even top Democrats have admitted.”
Still, there are those on the left who cannot give up their fantasy.
Lessig explained that for Clinton to reach the Oval Office, several things would need to happen.
Both President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence would have to be found guilty of “treason” and removed from office.
And House Speaker Paul Ryan, then next in line for the presidency, would have to take office.
Ryan, then, would have to pick Hillary Clinton as his vice president.
And then he would have to resign and turn over the Oval Office to Hillary Clinton.
The Washington Times reported Lessig “originally hypothesized” the scheme a few months ago.
“If the president and vice president are impeached for colluding with the Russians to win the White House, the professor said Mrs. Clinton is the rightful heir to the throne,” the Times reported.
Lessig wrote then, at Medium: “If Ryan became president because the Trump/Pence campaign committed treason, who should he nominate as his vice president. The answer seems unavoidable: He should nominate the person defeated by the treason of his own party, and then step aside, and let her become the president.”
Lessig told Newsweek on Wednesday. “This is one way that it could happen. But that’s very different from saying I think it will happen, or should happen, or the evidence is there for it to happen.”
But it could.
At Medium, Lessig penned his fantasy.
“There’s a bunch of chatter about imminent action by the special prosecutor. Some of that chatter suggests evidence of a real tie with Russia during the election. By ‘real tie’ I mean more than that the Russians tried to help. A ‘real tie’ would be real evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. I don’t know if I believe it. I certainly haven’t seen clear evidence of it. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to speculate about whether there is clear evidence of it or not. But I get tons of emails from people asking, ‘what if there was a conspiracy?’ It’s a fair question. We ought to have a clear answer,” he said.
Because of the attention he’s received, he’s added some comments.
“My aim in writing this was to map out what should happen and what was not possible, given the Constitution that we have,” he added. “When I published the piece, I really meant it to be a simple link that I could provide to people when they wrote with this question.”
He continued, “I … [make] it clear that I’m not asserting that there is any clear evidence of such a conspiracy, and indeed, that I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy. And more importantly, whether you believe there is or not, as I said upfront, I don’t believe it is appropriate to speculate about whether there is or isn’t. Let [special counsel Robert] Mueller do his job and we’ll see where we are when he’s finished. My point was if he reaches this particular conclusion, then the following should follow.”
Could a President Ryan nominate a Vice President Clinton?
“Of course, this is the sort of thing that’s unimaginable in Washington today. But that’s why we need to start imagining it, now. The nation won’t have months to deliberate the matter in the urgency of a treason-driven impeachment. It’s the sort of truth we should have resolved to long before it is needed.
“And it is the sort of truth we all should embrace: If you steal an election, neither you or your party should benefit from that theft. Even more so if you steal it in conspiracy with a foreign government. Everyone should be able to agree with this fundamental principle. The only question then is whether that principle would guide in this particular case.”