President-elect Donald Trump claims he only lost the popular vote to rival Hillary Clinton because of "millions of people who voted illegally."
There is no evidence to support this absurd claim whatsoever.
Trump's bizarre outburst, even by his standards, comes after the Clinton campaign announced that it will participate in an election recount.
The Green Party, led by candidate Jill Stein, filed for a recount in Wisconsin, and has also called for recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Trump won the Electoral College and the presidency November 8 in a stunning but clear upset of the former U.S. Secretary of State.
However, if Trump's razor thin margins in Wisconsin and Michigan, and close win in Pennsylvania, were flipped, Clinton would win the election.
Their combined Electoral Votes would give Clinton a 278-260 win, reversing his 306-232 margin (including Michigan which some sites haven't called).
Why are we even talking about this? Well ...
Claiming that there my be evidence of tampering or error in the results of those three states, Stein has raised millions calling for a recount.
Clinton did not initiate this; Stein is leading the effort, and Clinton saying she will participate means little other than monitoring the situation.
There is also little to no chance of irregularities in the voting results changing the outcome of any of the three states, let alone all of them.
Still, our thin-skinned, bird-brained Turkey of the Year went OFF.
"Hillary Clinton conceded the election when she called me just prior to the victory speech and after the results were in," Trump tweeted Sunday.
He then slammed Clinton for slamming him, during one of their presidential debates, for hedging on whether he'd accept the results.
"Nothing will change Hillary's debate answer on delay: 'That is horrifying. That is not the way our democracy works. Been around for 240 years.'"
"'We've had free and fair elections.'"
"'We've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them,'" he continued, quoting his vanquished Democratic rival.
"'And that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a [presidential debate stage] during a general election.'"
"'I, for one, am appalled that somebody that is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.'"
"'Then, separately she stated, 'He said something truly horrifying ... he refused to say that he would respect the results of this election.'"
"'That is a direct threat to our democracy.'"
Trump is right; Clinton did say just that.
"She then said [after the election], 'We have to accept the results and look to the future, Donald Trump is going to be our President,'" he added.
"'We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.' So much time and money will be spent - same result! Sad.'"
Ridiculous to be tweeting about this?
Absolutely, but from a content standpoint, it's nothing too over the top ... yet. The reality TV star continued his rant later in the day, though:
"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."
"It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4 states."
"Instead of the 15 states that I visited. I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!"
As is the case with many (most?) things Trump says, his allegation is bogus with absolutely no documented proof whatsoever.
Think about this for a moment:
Trump is denouncing a privately funded recount to ensure there was no fraud or error in three states he won by slim margins ...
... yet alleges matter-of-factly that millions of ballots cast for Clinton, presumably in states where she prevailed, are invalid?
How is one a concern and not the other? Why add a blatant, ridiculous lie to an unnecessary, but not entirely misguided, criticism of the recount?
Trump is right about one thing: Asking who won the popular vote (Clinton did) is irrelevant, because of the way the system is set up.
Four of the states with the biggest populations and the most Electoral Votes (California, Texas, New York and Illinois) were not contested.
If they had been, who knows how things would've turned out. Clinton and Trump both played by the same rules November 8, however.
Trump won, and barring an unprecedented Electoral College revolt, he will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States in January.
Nothing about Stein's recount will change this ... unless there was in fact major fraud or error, in which case, the situation is even worse.
Trump and his supporters will absolutely lose their minds, and the results of every other state will then be called into question as well.
Consider this: Trump won Michigan by around 12,000 votes, Wisconsin by around 22,000, and Pennsylvania by approximately 70,000.
Clinton won Minnesota and Nevada by fewer votes than Trump won Pennsylvania by ... and she won New Hampshire by fewer than 3,000!
What's stopping Trump legal challenges in those states, as well as an audit of California and its massive Clinton popular vote landslide?
Nothing. It would be anarchy, plunging an already polarized, bitterly divided nation into mass hysteria from which it might never recover.
Is anyone, Clinton included, actually rooting for that? No. And it won't, of course. Our election system may be imperfect, but it's not rigged.
Why Stein wants to spend millions challenging this is beyond us, but all of that said, why can't Trump stay above the fray for five minutes?