I suppose this is what one would expect following an election like the one we just witnessed last month.
You know, I’ve grown accustomed – sadly – to politicians flip-flopping over the years. But this year is really something special.
Remember when Donald Trump said he’d appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton?
Never mind.
Remember when he said he’d build a wall? Well, you know, a fence would be OK.
There was Trump on the minimum wage, nukes, torture, Iraq and Afghanistan.
And there was Hillary on the Iraq war, gay marriage, the TTP, NAFTA, Keystone Pipeline, the violent crime control law and immigrant children.
It’s what politicians do. I get it. It’s not right. But it’s what they do.
But comes now the recount. This is a stunning example of hypocrisy, even by political standards.
Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, is requesting recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Stein said she raised $5.7 million in a couple of weeks to pay for the recounts, which is weird because that’s more than she was able to raise during her entire presidential campaign.
I wonder who those donors were because they certainly weren’t a bunch of Jill Stein supporters.
Last Saturday, Hillary’s campaign said it would join in efforts to push for the recounts.
This, even after Marc Elias, Hillary’s campaign counsel, said the campaign’s own investigation has not uncovered any evidence of wrongdoing or hacking.
(It might be instructional to note here that, according to multiple sources online, Elias recently led legal battles against several state voting laws with an infusion of cash from billionaire George Soros.)
Elias said in a post on Medium.com that while the campaign was not going to contest the results itself, it has decided now to take part in the effort to "ensure that it is fair to all sides."
Hillary hasn’t commented, but I would really like to hear what she has to say, given what she said when Trump waffled on accepting the results of the election during the final presidential debate.
When asked if he’d accept the results if he lost, Trump wouldn’t commit and told moderator Mike Wallace, “I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at it now. What I’ve seen is so bad,” and, “I’ll keep you in suspense.”
At that point Clinton called Trump’s answer “horrifying,” and said he was  “talking down our democracy.”
Then, after the debate, she said, “Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election. That’s a direct threat to our democracy.”
And, “The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.”
And, “It’s not a joke, and look, some people are sore losers and we’ve just gotta keep goin’.”
So now she’s apparently in the business of “threatening our democracy” with Jill Stein.
I get it. Back when she said all that stuff, she thought she was going to win the election. Who knew she’d be the sore loser?
So, of course, all that stuff was easy to say.
For Trump’s part, he decides this is the time to launch a baseless Twitter attack on the integrity of the U.S. electoral process, claiming with no evidence that there were millions of fraudulent votes cast for Hillary.
Somebody needs to rein in that guy’s Twitter rants.
But what does this recount stuff really mean, anyway?
Probably nothing, frankly. It probably won’t change a thing. If it does, it would be the first time in history that a recount erased the size of leads Trump has in these critical states.
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it did.
Right now, the electoral college tally is 306 for Trump and 232 for Clinton.
Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes, Michigan, 16, and Pennsylvania 20.
So if Hillary wins all three recounts, she’d surpass the 270 electoral college threshold and be the next president.
Even if she won Pennsylvania and Michigan, Trump would still win – 270 to 268.
But in a race that close, the “electors” could come into play.
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of whether an elector has to vote the way their state voted.
That’s why Trump electors in several states have reported receiving death threats if they don’t switch their votes over to Hillary.
According to reporting in the Los Angeles Times, there are statutes and party rules in 29 states that bind electors’ votes to the electoral college. But, basically, if you break the rules you’d get fined a few hundred bucks.
These rules have never been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court, but more than a few constitutional scholars say the rules are probably unconstitutional.
If only two electors abandoned Trump, Hillary would be president.
And if one elector turned tale on Trump, neither candidate would have 270 and the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives.
There, each state delegation casts a single vote for one of the top three candidates. One would assume, with Republicans firmly in control, this would favor Trump.
It’s more likely that I’ll win the Powerball drawing this weekend than any of this happening.
But could you imagine the rancor if it would?
A more likely scenario is one in which demands by Stein for a hand recounts pushes states past the federal deadline to certify their vote totals.
If that happens, Congress would allot those states’ electoral votes.
Seriously, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you hate Trump or adore him, surely you can’t think this recount play is a good idea.
No matter the outcome, it only serves to more deeply divide a nation already suffering from an epic level of disunity.