Watching the cable news morning shows this weekend I heard one repeating theme settling in. Through all the discussions of the CIA report on Russian hacking to “influence” the election, people were falling all over themselves to assure us that the Democrats were not trying to take away the election from Donald Trump. They just want to find out what happened and make sure we’re protected from similar mischief in the future. Sounds reasonable, right? Nobody wants to see foreign actors tampering with the electoral process.

But if you listen to Hillary Clinton’s die hard, dead ender supporters, you’ll hear a very different story. Plans – albeit somewhat laughable and based on false assumptions – are already in the works to present a case for removing Trump and replacing him with Secretary Clinton. This bizarre case is laid out by Alex Mohajer at the Huffington Post this week. (Alex, by the way is the political director of Bros4Hillary… ahem. You can track them on Twitter under the hashtags #StillWithHer and #FlipTheElectoralCollege. Emphasis added.)

A 1995 federal court ruling out of Pennsylvania may offer some clues to Clinton supporters as to possible legal authority for removing an elected official from office and replacing them with their erstwhile opponent. In light of late-breaking reports Friday evening that Russians interfered with the 2016 presidential election to assist Donald Trump’s victory, Clinton supporters are furiously in pursuit of remedies… However, at least one court decision suggests there is some federal authority to invalidate the election outcome after the fact.

Alex and the rest of the election denial crowd are pointing to the 1994 Pennsylvania case of Marks v. Stinson. Those of us who lived in the area during that time probably recall the debacle quite well. It was a state senate race which was overturned after the winner had already been installed in office, seeing him removed and replaced by his opponent who had lost the election.

There are two reasons the Democrats probably don’t want to dredge up this ugly piece of American political history. The first is that the question of “interference” in the election, as Alex describes it, is a case of apples and oranges here. There is zero, zilch, absolutely no inference by anyone at this point that the Russians actually pulled off a case of voter fraud. There is no indication that they hacked into the voting machines or forged ballots or did anything to change the actual number of votes cast for each candidate. What they are accused of (assuming you are willing to engage in some mind reading to ascertain their motives) is hacking the records of DNC and Democratic campaign officials and releasing that information to the public. And keep in mind that the information they released wasn’t even fake. It was simply a case of the Democrats having things revealed which they’d assumed would remain private. If the voters acted on that information it still doesn’t make their votes invalid.

By comparison, the Marks v. Stinson was quite different, and that brings us to the second reason the Democrats probably don’t want to begin airing this particular bit of dirty laundry. William G. Stinson had “won” the election over Bruce Marks (though the judge actually used the phrase, “stole the election“) through an orchestrated campaign of submitting hundreds of absentee ballots. Some were from actual voters, but they had no legal reason to cast absentee ballots, such as being out of the country or unable to get to the polls. Many others, however, were flat out fraudulent votes. (New York Times, emphasis added.)

In many instances, according to Republicans who testified during a four-day civil trial last week, Democratic campaign workers forged absentee ballots. On many of the ballots, they used the names of people who were living in Puerto Rico or serving time in prison, and in one case, the voter had been dead for some time. “Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery,” Judge Newcomer wrote in a decision made public today.

If you were watching the adjectives in those two paragraphs you’ll see the other embarrassing aspect of this piece of “evidence” being offered in support of a plan to remove Trump and replace him with Clinton. Stinson – the guy who had “won” the race – was the Democrat. Marks was the Republican. We are endlessly lectured by Democrats about how voter fraud isn’t real, and even if it does happen it is so rare as to never affect the outcome of an election. Here we had a case where the fraud was so outrageous and widespread that the courts actually had to overturn a race, remove the “winner” from office and replace him because of widespread, systemic fraud… once again by Democrats.

There was no actual “fraud” discovered in the presidential race so far. At most there was “influence” in the form of releasing hidden, factual information to the voters, so the idea of overturning the results on that count is a red herring. And Marks vs Stinson is about the worst example the Democrats could pick to push into the news cycle. So we should ask our friends among the Clinton supporters the same question yet again. Do you really want to go down this road? Because if so, we’re very excited about the prospect.