Newsweek does an "Onion" spoof

Newsweek magazine may be sued by The Onion for an article they published by an alleged Harvard Law School professor who goes by the name Lawrence Lessig, an actual Harvard Law School professor. 

The Onion-like spoof suggests a scenario whereby Hillary Clinton could still become president.

Harvard professor, Newsweek mocked for claims Clinton can still become president, even though she was never voted into that office after being embarrassed by losing to Donald J. Trump.

The real Lawrence Lessig is a Roy L. Furman professor of law and leadership at Harvard Law School. This person [it could be a man or woman, we don't really know] outlined a fantasy in which Clinton could steal the reins of power in the event of a series of impeachments of the Trump administration.

The Onion, normally a smiley-faced satirical newspaper, was livid by the spoof.

Anyway, here's what the so-called "professor" said:

If Trump resigns or gets impeached, Vice President Mike Pence resigns or gets impeached and then House Speaker Paul Ryan, who would become the next in line as POTUS, could then appoint Hillary Clinton as his deputy and then resigns, she would become the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERRRICAAAAAA!

"This is one way that it could happen," the person calling him- or herself Lessig told Newsweek, who then printed the story. The so-called professor first envisioned this scenario in a blog post in October.

"If Ryan became President because the Trump/Pence campaign committed treason, who should he nominate as his Vice President?" he blogged. "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."

Hahahahahahahaha.

No wonder The Onion is angry at Newsweek. They tried to pull this crap off as real. 

Nobody who is serious about political philosophy would ever believe this load of garbage, except perhaps someone who still cannot get over the loss of Hillary Clinton, the worst possible candidate who ever cackled and farted quarters, to a reality TV guy, known to have cheated on all three of his wives and said he could shoot a person on the streets of Manhattan and get away with it.

A few people on social media thought that Newsweek was being serious about this article and attacked the canary cage liner mag pointing out that the U.S. Constitution and existing laws clearly define the line of succession and Clinton's position isn't mentioned even  once.

But Newsweek had to be kidding. Nobody would take that assertion seriously, would they?

Wall Street Journal writer Byron Tau said, "What's left of Newsweek is actively making people dumber and less informed and honestly should be unfollowed and shunned for this kind of behavior."

I guess Tau just didn't get the joke. The writer of the article couldn't possibly be a real law professor.



Tweet

Hillary's snowflakes still fighting Electoral College

The one in blue is still crying

There's nothing more enjoyable to me than to see photos of people crying over Hillary Clinton's presidential loss to Donald Trump. It gives me a modicum of faith that all is well with the nation.

A leftist-led attempt to overhaul the Electoral College could actually make it to the courtroom as a Harvard professor who ran as a dark-horse Democratic presidential candidate promises to legally change the electoral system. If successful, the voters on both coasts and illegal immigrants would have the final say in the nation's leadership. 

Hillary recently said she wants the system "eliminated" so that she might give it another shot in 2020 before she goes totally senile. But she doesn't want the entire system dismantled, but the winner-take-all system used by 48 states in awarding electors.

In other words, Hillary wants a system that would help her win next time, if there is a 'next time' for her. If Trump keeps his campaign promise however, she will be in the slammer.

The professor, Lawrence Lessig, said, in previewing his legal case to challenge the Electoral College, "With a winner-take-all, most of America is ignored."

Photo: Reuters

Lessig argues the current electoral system violates the 14th Amendment's one-man-one-vote principle as all but two states award all electors to the winner of the state's popular vote. And while he isn't decided which states to focus on (I bet it isn't going to be New York and California) he said 24 people have volunteered to be plaintiffs.

"We're looking for a Republican from a blue state whose vote never counts and a Democrat from a red state whose vote never counts," he said.

Although Lessig was for a very brief period, a Democratic candidate for president in the 2016 election, he insists this isn't a partisan endeavor and if you believe him, you probably are an avid reader of Slate and Media Matters. 

It would require a constitutional amendment for Lessig to win change in the current system. He prefers a proportional system where a losing candidate could still get a percentage of the state's electors based on the popular vote.

Defenders of the current system say that it provides stability.

Gary Rose, chairman of the political science department at Sacred Heart university said that "Under a district plan, we could see a number of third-party candidates emerge, competing for a narrow portion of the vote by just running in congressional districts. A proportional system would be a recipe for France, a multi-party system, with a plethora of small parties that are hardly bigger than an interest group."

Under those conditions, Rose said, presidential candidates would ignore the smaller states. "A national popular vote would be a detriment to the American people, and many voters would really feel disenfranchised if the campaign moved only to the urban areas," Rose said.

Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton's 232. But Clinton won the plurality of popular votes 48.5 percent to Trump's 46.4 percent. Ironically, under a district plan, Trump would have won 290 electoral votes and under a proportional system, he would have won 267 to Clinton's 265. A third party would have won six electoral votes and the House of Representatives would have had the final decision on the election.

With Lessig being a Democrat, his own analysis of a proportional system had Clinton winning 270 to 267. And while he says his reasoning has nothing to do with his political leaning, obviously it does.




Tweet