LISTEN: Dan Abrams Argues Hillary Clinton Would Have Had Better Voter Fraud Claims in 2016 Than Trump in 2020

ABC chief legal analyst and Mediaite founder Dan Abrams offered a rebuke of those continuing to spread former President Donald Trump’s “big lie” election fraud conspiracy — with a particularly ironic, historical twist.

On his eponymous SiriusXM radio show, Abrams ran through a number of highly improbable, yet still plausible arguments for unfair voter disenfranchisement that could’ve been made in 2016 — by Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Abrams began by hypothetically reversing the outcomes of 2016 election, which Clinton lost in the electoral vote, but still won the popular vote by nearly three million.

“I promise you the first argument that Donald Trump, in that hypothetical, and his supporters would be saying is: “How can we possibly allow the will of the people to be ignored,'” he said. “And there is a real, legal argument that you could make that does not abolish the Electoral College and it was an argument that various law professors were encouraging Hillary Clinton to make in the wake of 2016.”

That argument, Abrams explained, was that winner-take-all state apportionment of electors are unconstitutionally disenfranchising the minority votes in their states and, thus, violating the Equal Protection Clause.

“It’s a real argument,” he noted. “I don’t think it’s a winning argument and I’m glad she didn’t make it. But it’s a stronger argument, in my view, than the argument that has been litigated and lost, again and again and again by Team Trump and his allies.”

The second claim involved so-called statistical anomalies in the election results. Abrams noted that several top computer scientists pointed out that Clinton appeared to do noticeably worse in counties in three key swing states — Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — that used electronic voting machines versus counties that voted by optical scanners or paper ballots. One possible explanation: these counties ballot counting systems could’ve been hacked.

“You’re going to say ‘Wow, I didn’t know that,'” Abrams said. “Why didn’t you know about it? Because Hillary Clinton and her team didn’t amplify it because it was a unproven, theoretical thing. That’s why you didn’t hear about it. But if Donald Trump had been in Hillary Clinton’s position, you tell me. How big a deal would that be?”

Abrams’ next point involved the Russian government’s interference in the 2016 election, which the Mueller report confirmed had targeted and hacked the Clinton campaign.

“Imagine if the Clinton campaign had met with the Russians to get dirt on Donald Trump?” Abrams said, offering another historical counterfactual. “Trump supporters would be apoplectic.”

His final example, Abrams noted, sounded similar to the current “big lie” complaints about states allegedly not following their own election laws and the dozens of Trump campaign lawsuits being struck down for lack of standing and lack of merit. He pointed to a post-2016 election analysis from the liberal group Center for American Progress about widespread voter suppression in key swing states.

“These are the same sorts of arguments that Donald Trump and his supporters are making now,” Abrams pointed out. “And I am glad that Hillary Clinton did not make them. Most of them are weak. But on the whole, when you talk about someone who won the popular vote and where the Russians interfered in the election and tried to help your opponent, if that were Donald Trump I could at least understand why he’d be pissed. But he’s got none of that.”

Listen the audio above, via SiriusXM radio.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com