A little walk down memory lane.

The Electoral College Is John Podesta’s Last Hope – The Atlantic

Electoral College Members Request Intelligence Briefing On Russia, Trump – HuffPo

The game here was 10 electors demanding “intelligence briefings” on the false claim by the Hillary Clinton campaign, sourced through the Obama administration, that the Russians had somehow interfered in the election.

The Democrat electors claimed that they needed this to know “from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations. We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.”

Fit to serve.

In other words this was about electors who were bound to cast their votes for President Trump seeking a pretext to vote for Hillary Clinton. And John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, responded to this by endorsing their call.

 “The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security. Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed,” Podesta, in his role as the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, stated.

So let’s not have any faux outrage or more false claims that political norms are being violated. The Democrats were happy enough to violate all the norms they wanted.

Here’s the Washington Post’s Democracy Dies in Darkness take on it in 2016.

The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton. – Washington Post

The framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].” But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.