There are few people in public life today as uniquely ill positioned to bemoan whatever President Donald Trump does to this country as Jill Stein, the 2016 Green Party presidential nominee.

That’s because Stein’s vote totals in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were larger than the margins by which Democrat Hillary Clinton lost those key states – and with them, the White House. It’s not a great stretch to say that Clinton would have been a more natural repository for those voters than the racist, xenophobic, narcissist freak-show who now resides in the White House.

So unless and until Stein sees fit to issue a blanket apology for her role in the imperfect storm that saddled us with President Second Place, she would do well to keep her thoughts to herself regarding Trump’s governance.

And yet (h/t The Hill):

Why would we have a tie on such an egregious nominee? Because Democrats serve corporate interests. https://t.co/66rpL1ifik — Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) February 7, 2017

The tweet relates to Tuesday’s confirmation of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education – the first time in U.S. history a cabinet secretary nomination has required the vice president to cast a tie-breaking vote. “Why would we have a tie on such an egregious nominee? Because Democrats serve corporate interests,” Stein tweeted.

This assertion is laughable almost to the point of being fraudulent. There are 48 Democrats in the U.S. Senate; they not only all voted against DeVos – along with two Republicans – but they spent the entire night filibustering her. DeVos isn’t the new education secretary because Democrats are corporate shills but because there are more Republicans than Democrats in the Senate. This is civics 101 stuff that Stein (perhaps not unreasonably) seems to think her supporters are too ill-informed to understand. DeVos was confirmed because 51>50. There's not much you can do in the face of that math.

More broadly – and this is where recent history, like last fall, comes in – the egregiously unqualified DeVos wouldn’t have been nominated if Clinton had won the presidency last November. (And that's just one of an exponentially growing number of obvious differences between what a Clinton administration would have looked like and the actually unfolding Trump fiasco.) Stein of course campaigned on the idea that Clinton and Trump were corporate peas in a pod, ideologically indistinguishable. I don’t think I’m heading way out on a limb when I suggest that whomever Clinton would have nominated as education secretary would have been vastly better qualified than DeVos.