In a vivid demonstration of our political divide, less than half of the country believes that President Donald Trump should immediately concede. Only a majority of Democrats (by a wide margin) holds that view. Once again, the poll shows the hardened silos of American politics. It also shows how the media has detached itself and its coverage from half of this country. As it did before the election, the media continues to coddle Biden in press conferences and frame the news in a familiar slant. Within 24 hours of the election being called for Biden, many in the media declared any challenges to the election to be “conspiracy theories” and demanded an immediate concession of defeat from Trump. While I have expressed great skepticism over many challenges and I have been critical of the failure of the Administration to “ascertain” the election for Biden for weeks, I have maintained that it is important for these challenges to be heard and resolved if we have any hope to unify this country. While the media and many Democrats were correct in calling for “every vote to be counted,” they have opposed efforts to recount those votes or address whether they have been counted correctly. Again, there is no evidence of systemic fraud or errors, but the overwhelming pressure in the media to stop the challenges after the calling of the election has only deepened the suspicion and divide in this country — as has the President’s own rhetoric on a stolen election. A recount in Georgia has found the type of human error that we have previously discussed and thousands of uncounted votes. Yet, that has not stopped the attacks on anyone, including lawyers, who are seeking such reviews.
The poll shows how the little penetration and credibility the media now has with much of the public. Over half of the public still want to see the challenges resolved despite the steady drumbeat of the media to denounce any challenges or the need for them to be fully addressed in the courts. Indeed, some academics are comparing questioning Biden’s victory to “holocaust denial” or going to court as itself a form of fraud or abuse.
The new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that 46 percent of registered voters think Trump should concede to Biden “right away.” That includes 72 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of independents surveyed and 17 percent of Republicans.
The polls shows 32 percent of registered voters who believe that Trump should concede the election “eventually if he is unable to back up” his mass fraud claims. Notably, 21 percent of Democratic respondents and 34 percent of independent respondents are believe that Trump should not immediately concede but do so after the challenges are heard and resolved. Most worrisome for me is the 12 percent who believe that Trump should never concede. I expect the percentage for concession will (and should) increase as these challenges are heard and rejected. I have repeatedly stated that the Trump team is running out of time and runway to launch a serious claim of systemic problems in the election. (Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the challenge based on observers. I stated two weeks ago that allegations of involving observers would not likely change any outcome on voting). The problem is that all of the hyperventilation over the challenges and effort to stop them has fueled the mistrust of many in the results. What voters see is an immediate campaign (after the election was called for Biden) to harass lawyers and law firms to get them to drop challenges. What they see is the same one-sided media coverage that either ignores alleged irregularities or dismisses any claims before they were actually filed in court.
Given the nine percent who have not reach a conclusion, the plurality still favors immediate concession, but that is still remarkably low given the unrelenting coverage and open hostility shown to the challenges from the outset. A majority either does not support an immediate concession or have not reached a conclusion on the need for such a concession.
If Biden was losing in these states and this campaign produced hundreds of affidavits of alleged irregularities, the media and the Democrats would be demanding that all challenges be heard and resolved in the interests of the democratic process. I would be advocating supporting those calls as I did in 2004 when Democrats raised objections to the voting in states like Ohio.
There was a time when most voters trusted the media and that trust allowed for greater trust in the outcome of the election. For four years, the media has dispensed with any sense of neutrality and openly supported the Biden campaign. Reporters are now invested in the various narratives put forward by the Biden camp and their coverage reflects that bias. The result is shown in this poll. The media is now playing to the same 30-40 percent of the voters. It is no surprise therefore that the media got polling wrong or that their predictions of a blue wave collapsed on election night. The Republicans not only came remarkably close to retaking the house (which now has the smallest margin since World War II), but appear likely to retain the Senate. They also made major gains in state races. Moreover, while winning the popular vote handily, Biden won key states by only a couple percent points, including races that took a week to call. The mainstream media was wrong because it remains as siloed and isolated as its viewers.
Obviously, this poll will be spinned like everything else in our politics. Politico’s headline declares “Poll: 46 Percent Say Trump Should Concede ‘Right Away.'” Yet, what was most striking to some of us was that a majority does not even after a couple weeks of challenges and negative court decisions. What the poll really shows is an unresolved divide and no real avenue to breach that divide. I expect that those favoring a concession will rise in the coming days absent some major new challenge. However, the unrelenting biased coverage will likely undermine the confidence of many voters. That will only work to the disadvantage of Biden and the country going forward. What concerns me is that we have missed the best opportunity to come together as a nation by supporting a full and open review of the election.
In the past, it has been the media that helped unite us. We could trust that reporters have actively pursued allegations of wrongdoing. If the media called an election, most people accepted that judgment. No longer. That trust is largely gone and so is the capacity for healing. That is the most chilling aspect of the Politico poll: a plurality wants an immediate concession, a majority does not . . . and one hundred percent remains divided on either what the truth is or how to find it.
The problem isn’t Trump’s refusal to concede. It’s that he’s hindering Biden’s transition to power, whereas assisting in the transition could be done in parallel to the legal challenges in case they fail to reverse the election results.
I am an independent. I did not vote against either Trump or Biden. While I now tend to favor Biden for the Presidency, I also tend to favor Trump’s Constitutional duty not to concede until he has proven in Court, if he can, what both he and the media agree is an extremely serious “conspiracy theory” about election rigging (assuming he has credible evidence and genuinely believes in a stolen election).
I agree with Turley and other commenters on this blog that Trump only has until December 8 or thereabouts to make his case. After the states certify their results and the electoral college votes, presumptive President-elect Biden may then become President-elect Biden. At that point, in my view, if he has lost in the electoral college, Trump should concede.
But when should the GSA ascertain the results of the election? Turley says already, and last week I agreed, but this week I am undecided, primarily because Senator Lankford (R-OK), who chairs the Senate subcommittee with oversight of the GSA, has said the GSA should not ascertain until after the states certify their results and the electoral college votes. The House could possibly pass a resolution urging ascertainment. Could the Senate pass a resolution urging restraint? If a handful of Republican Senators came out and said the GSA should ascertain for Biden now, I would probably agree with the sense of Congress on the matter. As it stands, I think Republican Senators are unified in recommending restraint, and that the sense of Congress, on the whole, is on the side of restraint.
Jonathan. restraint might make sense if there was a serious accusation of voter fraud. Clearly there isn’t and we are 2 weeks after the election. The previous presidential election was much closer but there was no similar claims and our system has proven itself to be quite accurate with very few votes changed after recounts.
Based on those facts Langfort should grow the pair that someone cut off him between Friday and Monday and as chairman of the committee which oversees the GSA, add his voice to those calling for Biden to be ascertained as President Elect and receiving all transition courtesies, including the Daily Presidential Briefings, which Trump doesn’t pay attention to anyway.. With the current President missing in action except to vindictively fire those not sufficiently prostate before him, the latter becomes increasingly important.
The announcement of troop withdrawals without coordination with the NATO troops there with them, and in greater numbers already than US troops, the danger to our interests and those of our allies with an obviously disturbed, distraught, and distracted individual as President becomes more obvious. Maybe Article 25 time.
So you think a Biden Secretary of Defense (maybe Flournoy?) is likely to reverse on Trump troop withdrawals in southwest Asia? I think the NATO-backed US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were all mistakes, and that Trump has been right to question NATO relevance and financing.
SASC Chairman Inhofe appears satisfied with Trump’s drawdown plan:
https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sasc-chairman-inhofe-on-plans-to-withdraw-troops-from-afghanistan-and-iraq
There are no signs that Trump is acting rationally, including announcing a withdrawal before hand and without coordination with allies, all f which leave messes he won’t have to clean up. It should be noted that all his generals and the pentagon opposed this and that Biden counseled Obama to not proceed with the Afghanistan build-up in 2010.
I am aware that Biden counseled Obama against a surge in Afghanistan. I don’t know whether Biden counseled Obama against Operation Timber Sycamore, or where he now stands on the ICC’s attempt to prosecute alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan.
No other NATO nation except the US is under investigation by the ICC for war crimes in Afghanistan.
Why shouldn’t the rest of NATO, which has nearly twice the population of the US, take up any counter-terrorism slack that needs taking up in Southwest Asia? Beyond NATO, why shouldn’t China, Russia and the Arab League (i.e., Saudi Arabia) contribute all necessary additional peacekeepers and counter-terrorism troops to a UN Security Council-approved mission in Afghanistan?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/17/nato-chief-warns-of-high-price-of-hasty-afghan-withdrawal
I disagree with NATO SG Stoltenberg. Trump’s behavior is consistent, it is rational and it was telegraphed to NATO and all parties in Afghanistan long ahead of time.
NATO initially came to Afghanistan in support of the US after we were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists which the Taliban protected. What is proper may not be what is smart for all concerned. Beyond those considerations are the facts that Trump is acting under sudden and suspect motives against the advice of his generals and leaving a purposefully unsettled situation for Biden who is not even privy to security briefings, as he should be.as president elect. If Trump couldn’t get this one home before his term was up he should leave it in the slip.
The US helped create the Taliban. The Taliban first demanded evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt, then offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral country for trial, but the Bush administration refused to negotiate in each case. Obama, too, should have aimed at Osama’s extradition from Pakistan to a neutral country to stand trial. Extrajudicial assassinations are not the rule of law:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/article/has-justice-been-done-the-legality-of-bin-ladens-killing-under-international-law/56B645C939ABE4CB3E87E28F8E85D22D
Many legitimate questions still surround 9/11, which was not subject to an independent international investigation by the United Nations Security Council. US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were all mistakes. Biden should welcome Trump’s efforts to continue systematically withdrawing all US troops from these conflicts.
This, on the other hand, is one I completely agree Trump should “leave in the slip”:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/17/trump-considered-striking-iran-nuclear-sites-after-election-loss
There was no reason to hand Bin Laden over to another country – and one the Taliban insisted must not be under any US pressure, whatever that means.. The crime was committed in the US. Don;t know what you mean about 9/11 questions, but if you’re a truther, I’m not interested.
Not adequately supporting the Libyan revolution, which was indigenous and democratic was a mistake – Obama said it was one of his biggest – but intervening in a slaughter by Qaddafi was not. We were not in a war there. Iraq was a terrible f..k up and we did not start Syria and the options were and are limited.
BIden should tell Trump to cut the crap, and leave it to him. He’s not helping anyone and he’s screwing our allies and the US with a mess he won’t have to deal with. He’s done. Clean up your messes, don;t start new ones.
But back to the bigger point. Trump is acting recklessly and poisoning our system to save his own ass and endangering the future. His latest is a literal attempt to steal state electors from the voters in an attempt to get it to the House where he hopes he can win without winning. The result would be catastrophic for our system and our future and this is the act of a despicable human being without regard for anything, including and especially America.
We have different views of what is required from a credible international justice system regarding allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. I am further to the global left.
Things were certainly “messier” on the world stage in terms of US and foreign casualties (including civilians) under Obama-Biden and Bush-Cheney than under Trump-Pence.
Yemen excepted:
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/trump-yemen-war-civilian-deaths/
We need a President who will defend US troops by standing up to the global arms industry, not by feeding it further.
Are you genuinely concerned Trump will get this to the House? Which specific states’ electors do you think Biden is going to lose and why?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/18/can-donald-trump-stay-in-office-second-term-president-coup
The statutory language only requires that she ascertain the “apparent” winner:
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1329100614622613504
Do you really question that Biden is the apparent winner?
Here’s a copy of the letter that Ellen Weintraub, current FEC Commissioner and former Chair, sent to Murphy:
https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1326275176791683072
Excellent letter from Weintraub, but given it was sent a week ago and Murphy is still acting like a stooge instead of a responsible administrator, infuriating.
twitter what a good source lol
Thanks, CTHD. I am not sure this changes my opinion. I’d like to review more of the statutory language, if you have it handy. The language you have shown me thus far seems to be “apparent successful winner.” I don’t doubt that Biden has been the “apparent” AP-projected winner for a while now. But “successful” winner seems contestable. It has not been conceded by either the President or by Senate Republicans. Senate Republicans are instead holding a Senate majority line that I am not sure this GSA has the discretion to overrule.
Here is language from Trey Trainor, the current FEC Chair, that the GSA Administrator is no doubt also taking into account:
https://twitter.com/txelectionlaw/status/1328374748959694850
“Having practiced law for almost 2 decades as a member of the State Bar of Texas, I’ve never known fellow TX lawyer @SidneyPowell1 to be anything but forthright and honest in every case she’s ever taken on. If she says there is rampant voter fraud in #Election2020, I believe her.”
Here’s the complete statute: https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/Presidential_Act_of_1963.doc
Trainor worked as a lawyer for Trump’s 2016 campaign, was appointed by Trump to the FEC, and refused during his confirmation hearings to recuse from FEC matters involving the Trump campaign despite having worked for the campaign. He’s a Trump loyalist, and he’s made some pretty extreme claims: “Trainor contended the separation of church and state is ‘a fallacy,’ because ‘every person who comes to the public square has to have an informed conscience in one way or another, and it’s either informed by their religion, their tradition or something.’ The chairman also agreed with Voris that this year’s election amounts to a ‘spiritual war.'” (ncronline.org/news/politics/head-federal-election-commission-calls-separation-church-and-state-fallacy-and-2020)
I’ve seen Sidney Powell make a variety of questionable claims in her role as Michael Flynn’s lawyer (discussion/evidence in multiple columns here: https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/sidney-powell/), so I don’t share Mr. Trainor’s confidence in her.
Thanks, CTHD. You’ve raised some important doubts, but on the basis of what you’ve shared, I am not yet able to disqualify either Trainor or Powell from due consideration. They’ve staked their reputations on this.
I’ve read the doc and I certainly don’t want to see the presumptive PE and VPE deprived of due resources, access and intelligence. What do you think is the significance of the “Title 3, US Code 1 and 2” reference? Does it point more to the states’ certification of their electors than to AP-projections in the event of a contested election?
November 4-December 14, 2020: Counting Popular Votes and Filing Certificates of Ascertainment:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641
“Following election day, the states are to count and certify popular vote results according to their respective statutory and procedural requirements. When the states have completed their vote counts and ascertained the official results, the U.S. Code (3 U.S.C. §6) requires the state governors to prepare, “as soon as practicable,” documents known as Certificates of Ascertainment of the vote. The certificates must list the names of the electors chosen by the voters and the number of votes received in the popular election results, also the names of all losing candidates for elector, and the number of votes they received. Certificates of Ascertainment, which are often signed by state governors, must carry the seal of the state.”
In the event of a contested election, is it not safest for the GSA to await the tally of the states’ certified elector results?
The argument against: it deprives the Biden team of resources, access and intelligence necessary to maintain continuity of government during a state of national emergency.
“I don’t doubt that Biden has been the “apparent” AP-projected winner for a while now.”
If we talk about “apparent” winners then there was no need for an election since Biden was supposed to win with a blue wave. That too was wrong. Now we have to see if fraud can be proven to have played a significant part in this election.
The claim of fraud will go through the courts because of two major concepts, 1) equality under the law and 2) constitutional rights.
Jonathan, give it up. There is no basis for the nonsense Murphy is pulling and if that is not obvious to you, you’re trying a little too hard to not get what is obvious.
Weintraub stated: “every hour – …that GSAEmily fails to ascertain President-Elect Biden’s apparent victory…
The statement is wrong. Biden is not President-Elect. That only occurs after he gets the elector vote in December or after the other candidates concede. Why is it that such an easy concept is not understood by those that think they have expertise?
Kayla, then please explain how Trump – and Obama and Bush etc, etc were all deemed President elect before elector votes. As Weintraub points out, Murphy is tasked with ascertaining the “apparent” president elect and thus granting the ability of their transition team to be funded and access necessary information TO HELP KEEP AMERICA RUNNING SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY THROUGH A PERIOD OF TRANSITION.
This election was not nearly as close as the one in 2016 and none of this BS went on. The loser was an adult with a sense of duty to something other than herself.
I don’t remember Bush being declared President elect until he was declared the victor after the SC battle.
Your arguments and statements are very thin due to an inability you have to think clearly putting politics away until you determine right and wrong.
This isn’t analogous to 2000. In 2000, the results in a single state, Florida, determined who would win the electoral college and the difference in the vote count for Bush and Gore in Florida was less than 600 votes. In 2000, there was no President Elect initially because neither candidate had reached 270 electoral votes.
That inability to think clearly is yours, not JF’s.
“This isn’t analogous to 2000. In 2000, the results in a single state, Florida, determined…”
Anonymous, obviously you have a problem that I think most can see. Laws and rules are written to include all or most eventualities. Whether the difference was 600 or 6,000, whether it was 1 state or 5 states doesn’t matter. Whether the electors or SC made a decision does matter.
I think GWB may have been called President-Elect when Gore conceded the election, but shortly afterwards he retracted that and the President-Elect disappeared.
If this anonymous is Joe Friday then I will say you are “absolutely correct”, not because you are, rather I don’t want you to crack up and kill yourself.
If you are the other Anonymous who litters the list with his own dung (Intentional use of the word dung instead of excrement) then you are just too dull-witted to even respond to. I love how Joe claims the explanation of the N. Dakota death rate as his own when it was listed under Anonymous (doesn’t matter if one looks at the timing), but here we are left not knowing who this Anonymous poster truly is… The dull-witted one or the one that needs to be placed on suicide watch.
Kayla, I have no reason to think that you know better than she does.
What is your evidence that your requirements are actually required?
Clearly the suffix applies more broadly than just to the U.S. President (there can be a President-elect or Prime Minister-elect in another country, a state has a Governor-elect), so the requirement about the Electoral College wouldn’t be part of the definition per se.
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines the suffix “elect” as “the person who has been voted to be president, prime minister, etc. but has not yet started work,” and it makes no reference to concession, so why are you introducing that? And if you’re going to introduce the EC into it, why don’t you also say that it’s not until Congress certifies the EC vote?
“Kayla, I have no reason to think that you know better than she does.”
You can think whatever you wish, but one person doesn’t go outside the law to determine who the next president is. You are going to have to wait for the electors to vote or a SC decision unless Joe Biden or Trump concedes.
Kayla,
Apparently you cannot provide evidence that your definition for “President-Elect” is correct and that Ellen Weintraub is wrong, and you also aren’t willing to admit that.
Commit, believe what you wish. You believe a lot of things that aren’t true.
The law is a funny thing. People, that are supposed to know better frequently say things that are not legally true. That is what courts are for. That is something you don’t care to admit.
I don’t care what the term President-Elect means to you or anyone else. I care about what the law says. If Ellen Weintraub can quote the law and assure us it isn’t in conflict with other laws or other powers, then I might think you might have a point. So far I haven’t heard anything that would hold up in the courts.
By the way, all sorts of things are provided to those running for president whether they have a chance or not so even the lines are blurred, but money and space are provided to some extent whether President-Elect or not.
“If Ellen Weintraub can quote the law …”
She isn’t here, so there’s no way to find out. You, on the other hand, are here, and so far, you haven’t quoted any law to back up your claim that “[Weintraub’s] statement is wrong. Biden is not President-Elect.”
I already asked you: What is your evidence that your requirements (“President-Elect … only occurs after he gets the elector vote in December or after the other candidates concede”) are actually required?
If you have evidence, present it. If you don’t have evidence, then don’t assume you’re correct and Weintraub is wrong.
“You believe a lot of things that aren’t true.”
I’ll wait for you to provide evidence of that too. I do make mistakes sometimes, but I try to correct them when I realize that I’ve said something false.
Commit, the name of your game is playing with words. You are not good enough.
You can call Biden President-Elect all you want, but he doesn’t have that status or this discussion would be moot.
You want evidence but all you provide is an opinion from one that is frequently wrong. I don’t need evidence. Word games are meaningless. You are complaining that Biden is not being treated as President-Elect, not me. Reality strikes. You have your word game but Biden has not obtained the status.
In an attempt to enlighten let me provide a quote from Alan Dershowitz today. I hold his legal knowledge far ahead of that provided by Ellen Weintraub.
” Let us remember that as a matter of law and constitutionality, Joe Biden is not yet the president-elect. He has been coronated by the media, by politicians and by most Americans. But to officially become president-elect requires, at the very least, certification by enough states to give him the 270 required electors. That has not yet occurred. Nor has his opponent conceded defeat. Biden is the presumed president-elect, the likely president, even the probable president, but he is not officially the president-elect for legal and constitutional purposes. “
“Commit, the name of your game is playing with words.”
No, Kayla, I’m not playing a game. You claimed “[Weintraub’s] statement is wrong. Biden is not President-Elect,” and I asked you for evidence, and you haven’t presented any.
“all you provide is an opinion from one that is frequently wrong”
You haven’t presented any evidence that either she or I are frequently wrong, so it’s rather ironic for you to present your opinion about that while complaining about someone else’s opinion.
“You are complaining that Biden is not being treated as President-Elect”
No, actually, I was discussing the statutory language for the GSA (in my November 18, 12:27pm comment) and Weiintraub’s letter to Murphy, partly addressing the statutory language, and **you** were the one to disagree with Weintraub without actually dealing with the statutory language. The statutory language only requires the ascertainment of the “apparent” winner. The only “status” I was addressing is whether Murphy is acting according to the statute. The statute does not require that the EC have voted or that the apparent loser have conceded.
Have you read the relevant statute?
“Have you read the relevant statute?”
I read Alan Dershowitz’s opinion. I trust him for legal advice. You can trust Ellen Weintraub.
You can continue playing your word games, but I prefer to deal with reality. The reality is that the words President-Elect seem to mean different things based on circumstances or the debate occurring today wouldn’t be happening.
“Have you read the relevant statute?”
Yes. The statue is decades old and has been revised numerous times. Have you read all the revisions?
You are not a lawyer and you haven’t read all the relevant law that might affect the decision. “apparent successful candidates”
“No, actually, I was discussing the statutory language for the GSA”
In other words you are playing word games rather than dealing with reality and what actually is the likely ruling of the courts. I think Alan Dershowitz knows better than you.
” apparent” winner ”
You base your argument on the ” apparent winner “, not on reality.
Based on your logic, the one person according to the statute that declares the “apparent” winner, could be crazy and call the loser the winner, but the loser would not, in reality, be President-Elect. The apparent winner is a perception of the mind. It is a vague term. The paragraph you are looking at is not meaningful in the present debate. As I said before, there are all sorts of things given to candidates who are running for presidential office. The law pertains mostly to financial matters and space.
Based on your logic or your word games (choose your poison), Biden was going to win before the election. He was up double-digit numbers in many key areas. He was the apparent winner, so why should we vote?
You have some odd ideas.
I should add that in a discussion involving what Trump was supposed to do, you state “No, actually, I was discussing the statutory language for the GSA”
My response: “Based on your logic or your word games (choose your poison), Biden was going to win before the election. He was up double-digit numbers in many key areas. He was the apparent winner, so why should we vote?” pertains specifically to that comment.
It is normal for the GSA to authorize transition funding and office space quickly after the results are clear. Trump blocking that and everyone supporting that is just another example of changing the norms and pretending that the new rules have always been in place. It is dishonest.
It is normal for the GSA to authorize transition funding and office space quickly after the results are clear.
Legal challenges are normal. Certifying election results are normal. Recounts and audits of election results are normal. Unfortunately, obstructing these constitutional processes appear normal, to you and are what is dishonest..
Who is obstructing any of that, and where?
The GSA is tasked with ascertaining the “apparent” President elect. Let Trump wallow in futile challenges until the cows come home but we have a country to run and protect in the meantime.
Now you’re a GSA ascertaining expert? Nice. Cite the language in the GSA guidelines that authorizes them to ascertain the “apparent” President elect.
Let Trump wallow in futile challenges until the cows come home but we have a country to run and protect in the meantime.
Yes, those cows are called the electoral college and until those results are in, President Trump has a country to run and protect in the meantime.
Thanks for playing.
So I see you’re taking a cue from CTLBO. Here’s the entire section on Ascertaining:
Ascertaining the “Apparent Successful Candidates”
For the purposes of the PTA, the President-elect and Vice-President-elect are defined as “the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as
ascertained by the [GSA] Administrator following the general elections. In the immediate aftermath of the contested November 7, 2000, presidential election, neither major candidate (George W. Bush or Al Gore) was provided with the resources that would be available for the President-elect and Vice President-elect. In testimony before the House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, Administrator David J. Barram testified, “In this unprecedented, incredibly close and intensely contested election, with legal action being pursued by both sides, it is not apparent to me who the winner is. That is why I have not ascertained a President-elect.” In his testimony, the Administrator drew on a 1963 House floor debate concerning the PTA, during which a sponsor of the legislation stated that, “in a close contest, the Administrator simply would not make the decision.” The GSA Deputy Administrator reportedly provided PTA facilities and funds to the Bush-Cheney transition team on December 14, 2000, the day following Vice President Gore’s
concession speech.
At that time, the provisions of the PTA were limited to support of the President-elect, Vice President-elect, former Presidents, and former Vice Presidents. For the most part, the statute did
not provide a formal role for, or support for, major presidential candidates in the pre-election transition planning process. As discussed above, the PTA has been amended several times since
2000, broadening the statutory conception of the transition period to include major candidate contingency planning. Because the PTA now directs GSA to provide certain resources to these
candidates before the election, these resources could continue to sustain the transition planning, should the successful candidate not be apparent on Election Day
December 14th!? Let me get my calendar…that’s like 25 days and a wake up.
What’s your Ouija Board telling you now?
Darren, what happened to BytheBook’s (Joe Friday) reply and my reply to him?
You got yourself confused. Trump is doing what is constitutional. You are advocating putting the horse before the cart.
KEY PASSAGE OF COLUMN:
“Again, there is no evidence of systemic fraud or errors–
…………………………………………………………..
Indeed Professor, there ‘is’ no evidence of systemic fraud or errors. To the contrary, Republicans have attempted to make utterly feeble arguments.
Like in Michigan, for instance, Republicans were demanding that Detroit should be excluded from the state’s total vote count on the basis of a few irregularities. Republicans finally backed-off when accused of trying to disenfranchise tens of thousands of Black voters.
In Pennsylvania, Rudy Giuliani actually stood before a judge and argued that every vote in the state should be invalidated because ‘2’ people were allegedly ‘denied their right to vote’. How Rudy kept a straight face while making that argument should be the ‘real story there.
Lindsay Graham is known to have phoned the Georgia Secretary Of State with the odd suggestion that the latter should uncount mail ballots. When asked by the media why he was even meddling in Georgia, Graham falsely explained that he made calls to other Secretary of States as part of a one man investigation. But other Secretaries denied getting said calls.
And here we have Johnathan Turley saying “no evidence exists of systemic fraud or errors”. But the media is somehow showing its bias by expecting Trump to concede! The idea seems to be that Republicans should allowed an open-ended fishing trip to search high and low for a pretext to overturn the election results of key states. Like such an effort is perfectly ‘normal’ in the aftermath of elections. ..Not..!
“Republicans should allowed an open-ended fishing trip to search high and low for a pretext to overturn the election results of key states.”
*************************
Turnabout is fair play. The Dims tried it for four years. It’s going to be fun pointing out every hypocrisy the left will perform and all the stupid they will visit on us all. Even better when the country turns against the Bernie-Biden Bros as the economy tanks and the most liberal segments of society feel the greatest brunt of their being conned one more time by the Left. I think Einstein was thinking of these folks when he classically defined insanity.
If the fraud argument fails (we know there was some but it’s hard to prove since the Dims are masters of deception) then concede, announce your candidacy for 2024 and open MAGA TV to pummel the Dims at every turn. When Biden’s economy tanks, the country is overrun with illegals and criminals, and the social justice warriors reach ascendency the country will be ready for change. That’s a Lose-Win-Win strategy.
Mespo, your predictions about the future are not, you know, in high demand right now. As unfair as that may seem, I’m sure you understand.
Joe Friday:
Shut up, comrade. We know your Russian point of origin.
We are not divided because of the media, we are divided because the president of the US is lying about winning an election that he lost, and his supporters believe anything he says. Where is the responsibility of the president to tell the truth?
Molly, our liberal Democratic host has somehow missed the fact that Trump does not care if anything he says is true or false as long as it works for him for the next 10 minutes, and is therefore maybe 50-50 on lies.
“Where is the responsibility of the president to tell the truth?”
********************************
Right there with Shifty Schiff’s, bat-poop-crazy Nancy and Lying Joe’s.
Trump lies more than those 3 combined.
Molly, ever heard of the Hegelian Dialectic?
Of course, you haven’t.
Rhodes, have you ever considered not trolling?
Of course, you haven’t.
Rhodesy, should she discuss the inherent weaknesses of the Hegelian Dialectic here in the service of the education of your bazooka joe bubble gum comic understanding of the world?
One account I read estimated the volume of mail in ballots was 65 million Another put the number at 80 million. Compare that to the 33 million mail in ballots cast in 2016 and the volume roughly doubled this year.
In 2016, rejection rates for mail in ballots was about 1.2% and in the 2018 mid terms it was over 2.0%. This year, despite volume doubling, the rejection rate is only about 0.3%-0.4%.
Are we certain the huge increase in volume of mail in ballots did not create pressure on vote counters to lower the standards for accepting defective ballots as valid?
That, of course, is not the most commonly cited reason to explain the huge decrease in the rejection rate. No, we are told the reason why the rejection rate declined sharply despite a doubling in volume is that voters cured defective ballots at a much higher rate.
How is notifying someone their ballot is defective consistent with the principle of voting by “secret ballot”? What controls are in place to ensure a proper chain of custody and security of these defective ballots? Are we confident that all defective ballots are treated equally and fairly?
If the rejection rate were 2% – as it was two years ago – and assuming 80 million mail in ballots, then 1.6 million ballots would be rejected. But if the rejection rate is only 0.3% then only 240,000 ballots are rejected. That’s 1.36 million more votes being accepted.
There were some irregularities and they should be investigated. I don’t believe it will change the result and yet they should be discovered and corrected. No problem letting the legal process play out. Trying to short circuit it would only lead to more doubts. Nothing about recounts and challenging results is “unprecedented” as seems to be the word of the era for everything to indicate outrage.
REVOLUTIONARY: Alex Jones’ Most Epic Speech Ever At Million MAGA March
803,179 views
·
Nov 14, 2020
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
Alex Jones delivers possibly his most powerful speech to hundreds of thousands of patriots who support President Trump in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
https://banned.video/watch?id=5fb0487fe7557c36551bc2dd
If you think that video shows hundreds of thousands, you’re innumerate.
You can’t seem to focus & follow a thread. You failed to notice I’ve moved off the other thread.
Go to banned.video & you can find all those past info/videos of crowd size I’ve already posted.
Post it here. The less time I spend on Alex Jones’s site, the better. He’s a liar and conspiracy theorist.
People citing Vanilla ISIS on this blog, awesome.
At this point, Trump should simply say that he is following the advice that Hillary gave to Joe Biden.
When Turley condemns “the media” for being biased and polarizing this country, does “the media” include “Fox News”? Has Turley EVER written the words, “Fox News” in his commentaries on this blog? Why is it that he has NEVER criticized Fox’s patently obvious bias in favor of Trump? Do you suppose the fact that he is in its pay has anything to do with his silence? And does not his loyalty to his paymaster present an unmistakeable and undeniable conflict of interest to his obligation to us on this blog to be an IMPARTIAL legal analyst? Yes or no?
Fox News was the only network that got the Russian collusion hoax right from day one.
“No evidence of systemic fraud exists” That is the talking point of leftist deniers. Sydney Powell appeared just yesterday stating she had evidence (systemic) which linked the Dominion machines (which Texas would not use and even Democrats claimed could be manipulated) and the voting software used as the same system used in Venezuela to control election results for Hugo Chavez. She has in hand an affidavit signed by a top Venezuelan military official stating under the threat of perjury that this system was linked via internet for our results as they came in to go through Spain to Germany where the main server was located and controlled. This is against US voter laws and should scare anyone of either party. This military officer has risked his life and his family’s to reveal this. Last time I heard affidavits signed under threat of perjury were evidence.
Ms. Rogers, you wanna bet Powers will not be able to prove her allegations in a COURT OF LAW as opposed to the court of public opinion?
How much, Jeffrey?
And who will hold the money?
Because I damn sure don’t expect you to pay up voluntarily.
Ms. Rogers, I’ll send you a $100. I trust you to return it when you are proven wrong. What’s your Venmo or PayPal?
Let’s make it a gentleman’s bet Rhodes. You in? Losers show up here on 1/21 and admit they were wrong, no waffling, no qualifiers. You in? I am.
It shouldn’t even take that long Joe. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “Dec. 8, 2020: Deadline for Resolving Election Disputes. All state recounts and court contests over presidential election results must be completed by this date. (3 U.S.C. § 5)” (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx). Presumably Sidney Powell needs to prove her case by then. The Electoral College votes on December 14.
Phyllis, Powell has put up nothing to back up her claims and the recently fired head of the DHS Cybersecurity Dept specifically ruled out the kind of BS Powell is selling and you are apparently buying. You’ll regret it if you care about facts.
He tweeted:
“Quick Election Security Disinfo Debunker: election-related servers WERE NOT recently seized in Europe by the US Army contrary to #disinfo rapidly spreading across social media. Don’t buy it & think 2x before you share.
ICYMI: On allegations that election systems were manipulated, 59 election security experts all agree, “in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.” #Protect2020
Can we avoid a “Kafkaesque” society where we don’t have the ability to be reasonably sure about about political processes’ integrity? Kafka’s characters found themselves faced with massive bureaucracy where it impossible to tell why they were being harmed or even precisely who was responsible. Prof Turley implies that lack of trust in the process is worse than individual substantive issue disagreements which can be somewhat resolved by trial and error voting as time goes by. When voting trust fails there is a destabilization of good faith acceptance of our basic social contract (accepting majority rule to be a consensus that we have committed ourselves to obey even if the majority votes against our wishes). The trade-off here is between the good of easier methods of voting (like mail in) and the bad of vulnerability of those methods. Social contracts need to have their terms easily knowable, very public and open to scrutiny. Constitutions provide a good effort to do so. I think we all fear the potential of some people considering the corruption of the voting process as a “force majeure” abrogation of the social contract. We need to keep struggling within the system even with its wide cracks and fissures of problems. Suggestions: Think deeply about the other sides views on the matter. These are trade-offs at issue, consider pros and cons. Have respect the complexity of tough trade-offs and try to avoid mere rhetorical, “grain of truth”, gotcha, witty put downs.
Absolutely— well said
JT: “For four years, the media has dispensed with any sense of neutrality and openly supported the Biden campaign.” And I suppose the FACT that Trump was, is and always will be a chronic and habitual LIAR had nothing to contribute to the media bias. As if the media should not be biased against unrelenting lies and those who obediently repeat those lies as you often do, to wit, your statement that Mueller found “no collusion.” Damnable lie! You know that the truth IS that he did not find not SUFFICIENT evidence of a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY and that he explicitly stated that he would have exonerated Trump IF he could have but did NOT. And it is no wonder that Trump’s henchmen could not be forced to reveal all that they had done when they knew Trump would eventually pardon them if they kept their mouths shut! What is “collusion” after all? It is defined as a “secret collaboration or agreement”- not necessarily criminal. When Manafort met his Ukrainian business partner and purportedly FSB agent Kliminick to hand over polling data in secret, I suppose that was not collusion… No, not at all; that was a harmless gesture of goodwill! In fact, there was collusion, Turley. Stop lying.
We had the most thorough of polls on Nov 3 and by over 5 million votes Americans said Trump should get the f..k out of our WH.
Turley is on team Trump and that will be to his lasting shame.
joe friday wrote, “Turley is on team Trump and that will be to his lasting shame.”
That is an absolutely absurd conclusion; only a troll would write such nonsense.
Turley is a hard core Liberal and I doubt that he has ever voted for a Republican.
Turley is standing up for what he believes is right. It’s fair for you to disagree with Turley’s opinion but your ad hominem attacks, like this one, are simply nonsense.
Turley is not a hard core Liberal, and any honest person who reads his columns knows that.
Maybe you don’t understand the fact that a hardcore Liberal can stand up for what’s legally correct, Constitutionally correct and morally correct and still remain a hard core Liberal.
I know, I know, in today’s new found ideologically pure version of the hive minded political left anyone that veers slightly off of the extreme is smeared as a Conservative and how dare anyone publicly say what the political left has done or is doing is wrong, it’s blasphemy. It’s really interesting watching the political left eat their own.
Steve, I know lots of lifelong liberal Democrats who left the Party as soon as Obama took office and immediately took the TBTF bailout baton from Bush and ran with it like “Bullet” Bob Hayes in the 4 x 100 at the Tokyo Olympics.
Of course Barry telegraphed that move before he took office when he picked Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary (Hank Paulson’s pick) and lifelong Rockefeller boot licker Larry Summers, as his Chief Economic Advisor.
How many people can name Obama’s economic advisory team prior to him winning the 2008 election?
All of them were sent off packing the minute Barry the Wall Street shineboy won the election.
“Meet the new Boss, Same as the old Boss”.
Many of his columns aren’t legally, constitutionally, and morally correct.
Only a troll would write that JT writes columns that “aren’t legally, constitutionally, and morally correct”, and then provide no examples of same.
BTW, you’re a bigot and a racist.
Steve, in my approx year following him, Turley has never written any opinion here that could be construed as sympathetic – or even fair – to the position of Democrats, while he regularly attacks them and ignores similar or usually worse extremes – one of his favorite triggers – from the most powerful man in the world. If he’s a liberal Democrat I’m an NBA center,
Hey Joe, Turley often reveals his Democratic upbringing and I think he stated that he had not voted for Trump. But you are correct that he picks the speck out of the Democrat’s eye while ignoring the plank in his own. I suspect that he overlooks critiquing the Right because he writes for The Hill and he contributes to Fox. Also, I notice that he engages in some obvious score settling. Ever notice how often he criticizes Rep Schiff? A word cloud of his commentaries would be very revealing of his prejudices. We have no idea of the inside baseball of his relationships with Democratic leaders and the mainstream media for whom he used to work. Obviously, there must be some bad blood which we may never learn about. But I suspect there is a reason that he can’t find work at a reputable news outlet. Fox’s business model is clear: whatever the mainstream media says, we must say the opposite; otherwise, we cannot distinguish ourselves from the mainstream. That is no way to be a journalistic outfit, and yet Turley disgraces himself by going on Tucker’s and Hannity’s show.
Last Saturday high level people in the DC police Dept & US intel estimated that the number of peaceful Americans & Trump supporters that showed up in DC for a rally was around a million people +-.
As I understand it a few days ago there was a discussion among the WH people/lawyers weather (sic) or not to allow Trump to address the American People, the “Real Stake Holders” of the USA or shut up & allow the lawyers to present the case, proof of another Voter/Vote fraudulent election, as to not inflame the current judges that might hear the Team Trump’s case. The word was the Trump Lawyers barley won, but they have but a few days because of the time limits…. Art 2, Sec 1.
Because of the near total corruption of the judges, the system, many don’t believe there’s time to work things out though a collapsed justice system.
I think I’ve a pretty good idea what is going to happen if the Communist Traitors, Biden (Pedo) & Kameltoe, do not concede immediately & surrender themselves up to the nearest US Marshalls to face criminal charges.
Pics last Saturday DC, Infowars/Alex Jones in one week prep & puts around a Million Boots On the Ground in DC!!! Where’s Biden’s American Hating Commie Supporters At????
Today it continues Georgia Capital , Noon Today & I think though Noon Saturday:
https://banned.video/watch?id=5fb45e28cd836d3da7e0c02a
You’all will have to pick a side ot leave the US, American/Trump or the Globalist agent Commie Pedo Commie Biden/Kameltoe it’s that simple this time.
Crowd estimates were 10,000 +-
Liar, there’s pictures & Video. Learn to count.
You can’t show a photo or video with a million people.
Watch the videos I post if you dare.
I looked at the one you posted of Alex Jones. That crowd only had a few hundred people.
“Within 24 hours of the election being called for Biden, many in the media declared any challenges to the election to be “conspiracy theories”
This from the same clowns in the MSM who relentlessly pushed a now debunked Russian conspiracy theory for 27 months, only to end up with this:
https://digg.com/2019/mueller-report-nyt-wapo
The term was invented by the CIA:
https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theory-America-Discovering/dp/0292757697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471971025&sr=1-1&keywords=Conspiracy+Theory+in+America
“the term “conspiracy theory” entered the American lexicon of political speech to deflect criticism of the Warren Commission and traces it back to a CIA propaganda campaign to discredit doubters of the commission’s report.”
Turley says “the unrelenting biased coverage will likely undermine the confidence of many voters.”
Turley: how about using the same language re: Trump and say that the President’s unrelenting lies about a stolen election will likely undermine the confidence of his supporters as well?
Meanwhile, Turley mentions the PA ruling yesterday but is silent about the hearing in a different federal case in PA yesterday, where Giuliani apparently made an ass of himself.
Rick Hasen (UC Irvine law prof. specializing in election law):
“Rudy [Giuliani] just botched the “strict scrutiny” question—he is confusing the standard for a motion to dismiss with the level of scrutiny for an equal protection claim. He said no strict scrutiny. This is something that goes against his client’s interest.
“The judge is having to educate Rudy about strict scrutiny applying to fundamental rights. Rudy has no idea what he’s talking about. It is hard to see how a lawyer could do worse than this on this question. If any of my students were as confused as Rudy is, they would fail my election law class, something I’ve almost never done. …
“The judge is having to teach Rudy basic constitutional law. That’s not hyperbole. This is a description of what is happening at this hearing. I’ve never seen worse lawyering in an election law case in my life.”
Hasen’s Twitter account and election law blog has information about a variety of election-related legal news:
twitter.com/rickhasen, https://electionlawblog.org/
Raffi Melkonian (appellate lawyer):
“Rudy was unable to express a single clear answer to anything the judge asked; he hardly understood the questions; and then desperately sought to amend his complaint again but didn’t know you needed to file a motion for leave.”
His live tweeting from the hearing, if anyone wants more details:
https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/status/1328767248903901185
As usual; the shill CommitToHonestDiscussion’s (moniker is an oxymoron) comment is nothing but a deflection from the text that she quoted, she didn’t address the content of the quote at all, just spewed deflections. So CTHD, why don’t you grow a set of balls and tell us if you agree or disagree with what you quoted “the unrelenting biased coverage will likely undermine the confidence of many voters.”
“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X
The left leaning main stream media has take this quote to absurdity, they are an enemy of our representative democracy. If you support what the media has done over the last 4 years then you too are an enemy of our representative democracy.
Steve, I suggest you grow ovaries and choose to have civil and honest discussions.
The 9:10am comment above is from me, CommitToHonestDiscussion.
Still deflecting?
Shill.
Asking you to be civil and honest isn’t a deflection.
You criticized “childish adults”:
https://stevewitherspoon.home.blog/2020/09/14/emotional-childishness-is-a-societal-cancer/
Think about your own behavior. If you’re unwilling to have a civil and honest discussion, then I won’t waste my time responding.
Young lady, you are a rhetorical coward.
I’m not young, Steve, and I don’t care whether you think that asking someone to act like an adult and have a civil and honest discussion is cowardly.
CTHD,
Do you you agree or disagree with what you quoted, “the unrelenting biased coverage will likely undermine the confidence of many voters”?
I’ll answer that after you answer my questions to you yesterday, Steve: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/16/the-first-thing-we-do-the-lawless-campaign-to-harass-lawyers-representing-the-trump-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-2026214
I’m not going to play a game where you refuse to answer my questions but expect me to answer yours.
It’s really interesting how a shill responds to a request that they actually state whether they agree or disagree with something that they themself quoted and used for the basis of a comment that was full of nothing but deflections and never once addressed what was in the quote that they actually quoted. Then the shill tries an intellectually dishonest comparison of asking rhetorical questions elsewhere that were used as a deflection from the shills ignorance and lies. Sounds like deflections is the name of the game that the shill is playing. Here is my message to the shill, f**k off and find someone else to troll.
It sounds like the rhetorical coward shill won’t be conversing with me anymore. So be it. My day just got a bit brighter.
Steve, grow up. Respond intelligently or STFU.
They weren’t rhetorical questions, Steve.
You said both “It is a verifiable LIE to factually state that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice; he has NOT been convicted of such a crime.” AND (elsewhere) that “President Clinton actually committed a chargeable crime, he actually lied under oath and obstructed justice.” So I asked you: “Were you lying when you said elsewhere that “President Clinton actually committed a chargeable crime, he actually lied under oath and obstructed justice”? After all, he was not convicted of either perjury or obstruction.” That’s a sincere question. If you accuse me of lying when I say that Trump committed a crime even though he hasn’t been convicted AND if you’re an honest person and not a hypocrite, then you’d have to conclude that you, too, were lying when you insisted that Clinton “committed a chargeable crime” even though he was never convicted.
My view is that one can make an honest claim that someone has committed a crime despite the person not having been convicted. I say that both Trump and Bill Clinton and other people (e.g., actual Nazis) have done just that.
It is not trolling to insist that we both abide by the same standards. IF you want me to answer your questions, THEN you must be willing to answer mine. I asked you first, and as soon as you answer mine, I’ll answer yours.
Frankly, it’s ironic that you accuse me of trolling when you’re the one posting all of the insults. But you’re right, I’ve gotten to the point where I consider you a troll (dishonest, insulting, …) and I should stop feeding you.
I’m not going down your rabbit hole in this thread, you never once supported your claim with facts you linked to a report that simply did not support your argument and I proved that fact. You STFU and go troll someone else.
Take your own advice, Steve. Better yet, learn to have a civil and honest discussion and don’t troll anyone.
It’s a political poll and there’s one thing that the last 5+ years of political polls have shown without any doubt, political polls are unreliable and used as propaganda.
Others have given their reasons for and against President Trump conceding, now it’s time for me to share my top ten reasons.
Up front, I realize that some of these are some form of rationalization. I won’t think less of any of you if you have to correct anything or slam me for rationalizations.
1. In my opinion there is no legal down side to conceding. The legal challenges can continue to get to the bottom of the irregularities and if by some slim chance the vote tallies turn the election back towards Trump as being the winner then the Trump concession was based on false information and is not legally binding.
2. Conceding now will remove fuel that’s feeding a growing fire. It’s time for President Trump to do the Presidential thing and calm the masses. There is reasonable evidence at this point in time to conclude that Biden won the election so conceding and calming the nation is the right thing to do. If by chance the recounts and legal challenges turn the election and show that President Trump won the election then the fires can be stoked again.
3. There is precedence to gracefully concede.
4. To not concede now would be tit-for-tat rationalization; just because Clinton didn’t concede and never accepted the results of the election and told Biden to never concede this election is no reason to not concede what is apparent at this point in time.
5. At this point in time, it’s the civil thing to do. The Democrats are not willing to be civil about anything, but we can show that we are different.
6. To conceded at this point in a civil manner will effectively deflate the political left’s argument that President Trump is not going to leave the White House.
7. President elect Biden deserves the same professional and transfer of power courtesies that other President elect’s have received before him, all with the exception of President elect Trump.
8. To gracefully concede at this point in time would show a level respect for the election process and the 51% of voters that voted for Biden without ostracizing the voters that voted for Trump, completely opposite what the political left did in 2016.
9. The American people deserve some political peace, even if it’s fleeting.
10. It puts the political ball in the Democrats court to react; either they choose to douse the fire or continue to feed the flames of their base.
I wrote that exact same comment back on NOVEMBER 15, 2020 AT 9:55 AM on EthicsAlarms.
Steve, Clinton conceded to Trump by phone early the morning of the day after the election and stated this clearly in a public appearance the next day, wished him well, and even showed up at the inauguration, an obviously distasteful act which she did out of a sense of duty.
Look it up. The video of her appearance is readily available.
This false narrative tells us something about the sources many Republicans listen to.
Joe Friday,
You certainly didn’t actually comprehend my comment; but I’ve got to ask, did you even read my comment?
Joe, Friday,
I also withdraw this comment.
Steve, I did, and applaud your ability to do what we expect adults, but I caught your mistatement of fact. Don’t feel bad. Others here have parroted the same misinformation, so I guess it’s a Fox thing, or something. Here’s Clinton the day after the election:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/09/hillary_clinton_delivers_concession_speech.html
You’re also wrong on #7. OBama had Trump over to the WH within a couple of days of the election for over an hour of discussions and directed his staff to follow the lead of Bush’s staff in making the transition smooth and in the interests of America. Biden had Pence over to the VP residence and Michelle had Melania over for tea. Trump is the first President in recent history to be an infantile a..ole, but hey we all knew that about him already, right?
I honestly thought I had edited that part out of the comment before I posted it over on Ethics Alarms and this morning I just copied and pasted the text here without rereading it. I just posted a correction over on Ethics Alarms too. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As for #7; superficial appearances are all fine and good but after all that has transpired over the last 4 years, discussions in the Oval Office during the transition coming to light and the way the political left and their lap dog media have conducted themselves you and I are just going to have to disagree on that point. President Trump was never awarded the honor of a peaceful transition by the political left.
STeve, all the evidence is contrary to your opinion and you’d have to present some to convince me. Obama did not become a Republican the day HIllary lost and no one expects Trump to join the Paris Climate Accord now that he’s lost, But how about sucking it up and providing access to the President elect and his team for the sake of America. You agree with this, so quit providing excuses for him not to.. Obama ad Hillary are not excuses – they did the right thing.
Joe Friday wrote, “But how about sucking it up and providing access to the President elect and his team for the sake of America.”
Maybe you don’t know it but the media is NOT who calls the election, the individual states must certify their elections after all the legal votes have been cast and then the Electoral College does their job in December; the fact is that Joe Biden is not the President elect yet he’s just projected to be.
It’s critically important for all Americans to understand that this election is not over until every legal vote is counted and the states go through their processes of certification. There is a clear, constitutional process we must follow that was created by the Founding Fathers and has guided every election since 1789.
Get the counts done properly, get the election certified by the states and then the Electoral College votes, then the election is over. If these things cannot be done properly the election cannot be certified and it goes to the House of Representatives. There is a process, let it play out and let the chips fall where they may.
We the people have gotten way to used to the media calling the election when it’s really one sided but when it’s as close as it is in swing states the media calling the election is wildly unethical until the states have certified their election and the legal challenges have been satisfied.
Take a pill and give it a rest, it’s over when the Constitution says it’s over.
So then, Hillary and Obama, Bush and McCain, HW, and so on should have stonewalled their predecessors until the official electoral college vote under the infantile and obviously false hope that the reported vote was massively wrong?
Gee, Steve and just when I thought we were making progress.
I think you better hope N Korea, Iran, China, and Russia are taking pills. The people dying in our hospitals already are.
Joe Friday wrote, “So then, Hillary and Obama, Bush and McCain, HW, and so on should have stonewalled their predecessors until the official electoral college vote under the infantile and obviously false hope that the reported vote was massively wrong?”
You obviously either missed or didn’t fully comprehend this paragraph…
I boldfaced the part that didn’t sink in.
It’s over when the Constitution says it’s over.
Joe Friday wrote, “I think you better hope N Korea, Iran, China, and Russia are taking pills. The people dying in our hospitals already are.”
So you’re back to your usual deflection? I’m not going down your rabbit hole.
Steve ignores the fact that the villainous “media” was extremely careful calling states and we only heard on Georgia and Arizona this weekend. He can’t seriously have doubts, or if so was he equally on guard about 2016 when the swing states were much closer, Hillary conceded the next day, and Obama welcomed Trump to the WH and opened up his administration to his transition team.
Other than that, the rabbit hole we should all be worried about is what those who wish America ill are taking sleeping pills while we have a president who has abandoned his duties and is handicapping his successor because he’s an emotional toddler. Steve wants to make excuses for that?
joe friday wrote, “Steve wants to make excuses for that?”
This conversation is over.
Joe Friday,
I withdraw my statement about Clinton not conceding, your accurate on that particular part. If you are implying that Clinton actually accepted the results of the election beyond her statement you’re deluding yourself.
I appreciate the retraction Steve.
Hillary was not in office and had no ability to do anything beyond her concession and attendance at the inauguration.
Joe Friday wrote, “Hillary was not in office and had no ability to do anything beyond her concession and attendance at the inauguration.”
I view that statement as an unethical rationalization.
Clinton intentionally fanned the flames of the anti-Trump resistance from the moment she knew she lost the election and she hasn’t stopped to this day.
My hope, slim that it is these days, is that the political right doesn’t employ the tit-for-tat rationalization and do to Biden what was done to Trump. Of course the political right doesn’t have the same unethical majority of the main stream media and academia in their lap pocket to spread anti-Biden propaganda at every turn. I really have no hope for political peace these days and it’s not because Trump is a loose cannon mouthed narcissist jerk, it because of the totalitarian leanings that the political left has shown us over the last 4+ years.
Uh Steve, fanning the flames of political resistance is like, you know, what politicians do.
What was done to Trump that you find not typical? Please be specific. I can say, that unlike the stonewall, “Waterloo” greeting Obama got from the GOP Senators, Democrats tried to work with Trump on a budget bill and infrastructure. I’ll also not that the same GOP senators stole a SC appointment from Obama, so what was so bad that it broke norms?
I’m not trying to restart this conversation.
Here’s a FYI, Hillary Clinton was still publicly calling Donald Trump and illegitimate President as recently as her interview with CBS Sunday morning in September 2019.
Illegitimate: not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQesfLIycJw&w=880&h=495%5D
Steve, so what? She had no powers over who was president? What did Trump call Hillary, Biden, Obama, and on and on?
Joe, Clinton also didn’t tell Biden to to never concede this election. She said not to concede on election night:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-joe-biden-should-not-concede-on-election-night-idUSKBN25L2FJ
CommitToHonestDiscussion,
You should have done a little more investigating into this one. You’re not just wrong, you’re verifiably wrong.
Here is Hillary Clinton in her own words as quoted by NBC.
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156
Steve, I did more investigating when I first encountered the claim, which was before today. Not only did I hear the entirety of what you just quoted, I also heard the rest of what she said. She was talking about not conceding under any circumstances on Election Day even if it looks then like Trump won the EC (where she refers to Trump having “maybe a narrow advantage in the Electoral College on Election Day”). Listen to a longer excerpt:
CTHD wrote, “She was talking about not conceding under any circumstances on Election Day…”
HOGWASH!!!
You are intentionally conflating two completely separate statements in the interview. The statement that I quoted was not qualified in any way as you claim. Your argument is false, the facts do not support your argument and you’re trying to spin it.
Seriously CTHD, this is exactly what shills do so if you don’t want to be seen as a shill of the political left then change your tactics. The choice is yours.
Steve, I’ve carried out research interviews, analyzed them, and published peer-reviewed research using interview data, as have colleagues. I actually know more than you do about listening to people in context.
Your name-calling only reflects on you. Reread your column and think hard about your own behavior:
https://stevewitherspoon.home.blog/2020/09/14/emotional-childishness-is-a-societal-cancer/
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “Steve, I’ve carried out research interviews, analyzed them, and published peer-reviewed research using interview data, as have colleagues. I actually know more than you do about listening to people in context.”
That is a rationalization.
No CTHD, just because you have done the things you say you’ve done doesn’t mean that you are correct and I am incorrect. Your self-validating rationalization and your “logic” is a complete failure.
What I wrote that she said “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances” is 100% fact based, what you wrote that “She was talking about not conceding under any circumstances on Election Day…” is not fact. You are in fact inferring from two completely separate statements that you are conflating into one, this is unethical. If you truly have carried out research interviews, analyzed them, and published peer-reviewed research using interview data and you have used this kind of inferring and logic then your work should be double checked by a true professional for errors in conclusions. This is one of the main problems we see in todays left leaning media, they infer based on their bias all the time, it’s BS journalism and comes across as nothing but intentional propaganda.
Again; you are not just wrong, you are verifiably wrong.
“You are in fact inferring from two completely separate statements”
Except that they aren’t completely separate statements. The entire exchange is in response to Palmieri’s question and is about how the results on Election Day don’t necessarily reflect the final results, how that was the case for some races in WI, how the GOP saw the challenges in MI as a dry run for November, and if it’s a close election, she doesn’t expect it to be resolved on Election Day, so don’t concede then.
Here’s a rough transcript (meaning that I’m omitting “uh,” overlapping talk, not trying to capture all partial word starts, etc., and it’s possible there’s an error because I’m not going to check it carefully):
Palmieri: “If it’s a close election, like say Biden, you know, wi-, say Biden wins, what do you think Trump will do?”
Clinton: “Look, I think that they have a couple of scenarios that they’re looking toward. One is messing up absentee balloting. They believe that helps them. So that they then get maybe a narrow advantage in the Electoral College on Election Day. Because remember, we’ve seen a couple of cases, like in Wisconsin, where they did everything they could to mess up voting, but because courts had ordered absentee ballots to be counted if they were postmarked on Election Day, Democrats actually won some important races there. In the recent Michigan primary, I was told in Detroit the Republicans had 40 lawyers challenging absentee mail-in voting, and a local reporter talking to one of the lawyers he knew was told it was a dry run for November. So we’ve gotta have a massive legal operation, and I know the Biden Campaign is working on that. We have to have poll workers, and I urge people who are able to: be a poll worker. We have to have our own teams of people to counter the force of intimidation that the Republicans and Trump are going to put outside polling places. This is a big organizational challenge. But at least we know more about what they’re going to do. And Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is gonna to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”
You and I both agree that she said “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”
Hopefully you can also agree that she said “they then get maybe a narrow advantage in the Electoral College on Election Day.”
I’m saying that that’s the context for what follows, because the entire statement is a response to Palmieri’s question about Biden winning in a close election where Clinton presumes Trump having a narrow EC advantage on Election Day.
I’m not “verifiably wrong.” She said what she said. The question is not about what words she said (we agree on that), but about what she **meant**. Context matters in determining meaning. What she said earlier in her response matters in determining **meaning**.
Everyone infers things. I do, and so do you. You’re actually quite bad at accurately inferring meaning. For example, when I said “I’m a woman, not ‘sir,’” you inferred nonsense that I didn’t imply and responded “Awww that’s sweet; did I insult the self-centered preciousness of a psychological snowflake with piles of participation trophies on her shelves? I assumed wrong about your gender, big fat hairy deal, get over yourself.” I wasn’t insulted, and there was nothing for me to get over. I was simply letting you know that I’m a woman, and you responded with a bizarre loaded question about “the self-centered preciousness of a psychological snowflake with piles of participation trophies on her shelves.” Once again, take your own advice: get over yourself.
CommitToHonestDiscussion,
You can try to spin this like shills regularly do but it doesn’t change the actual facts.
I stand by my evaluation of Hillary Clinton’s statements in that interview 100%. I stated simple fact, you stated a inference based on conflating two completely separate statements, that is fact. Again the facts; Hillary Clinton did not state that “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances on election day…” she in fact stated “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances…” that’s the end of the clause.
Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
It is an actual fact that you are inferring; you choosing to deny that fact doesn’t change factual reality. What you are stating as a conclusion is in fact your personal opinion based on you conflating things into an alternate reality and you choose to believe that regardless of the actual facts, that too is very shill like.
You’re welcome to your opinionated delusion but don’t expect others to swallow your nonsense when the facts tell a different story.
I disagree with your conclusion. Get over yourself.
Again, Steve, you and I **agree** that Clinton said “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is gonna to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.” We aren’t debating that. We’re debating whether she meant that statement to apply only to conceding on Election Day or if it meant never conceding.
I never claimed that she said “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances on election day” (in quotation marks). I said She was talking about not conceding under any circumstances on Election Day even if it looks then like Trump won the EC (where she refers to Trump having “maybe a narrow advantage in the Electoral College on Election Day”)., which is clearly talking about her meaning, interpreting her statement in context.
“I stated simple fact”
When you quoted her, yes. You’ve also stated things that aren’t facts.
“you stated a inference based on conflating two completely separate statements, that is fact.”
It’s fact that I stated an inference, but it is *not* a fact that I “conflat[ed] two completely separate statements.” The latter is your opinion (not “simple fact”). It’s a fact that both statements are part of her answer to a single question from Palmieri. Your opinion is that the statements are “completely separate,” and my opinion is that they are connected.
Both of us are inferring things in developing our opinions.
“It is an actual fact that you are inferring; you choosing to deny that fact doesn’t change factual reality.”
But I didn’t deny it. I specifically noted “Everyone infers things.” I assumed that you understood I was acknowledging the inference in determining what Clinton meant. Apparently I overestimated your understanding of what I was saying.
“I disagree with your conclusion.”
Yes, and I disagree with yours.
As for your “shill” claims, grow up.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “It’s fact that I stated an inference, but it is *not* a fact that I “conflat[ed] two completely separate statements.” The latter is your opinion (not “simple fact”). It’s a fact that both statements are part of her answer…”
You just contradicted yourself and proved my point. You said that it is not a fact that they were two separate statements and then you immediately stated that they were separate statements when you wrote “both statements”.
Now that you’ve proven in your own words that they were in fact two separate statements are you going to openly acknowledge that you were in fact incorrect to continually argue that they weren’t separate statements? This is a choice that will reveal your character.
Remember, “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
“You said that it is not a fact that they were two separate statements”
I said “it is *not* a fact that I ‘conflat[ed] two completely separate statements’” and “they aren’t completely separate statements.”
“You just contradicted yourself”
No, I didn’t. “Both” indicates two, but “both” does not imply “completely separate,” much less does it imply “conflating” things that are “completely separate.” It’s easy to come up with examples where we say “both” for two things that are connected (e.g., conjoined twins, links in a bracelet). In this case, I’m referring to both statements where they’re connected in a response.
I even pointed out to you “Your opinion is that the statements are ‘completely separate,’ and my opinion is that they are connected.”
Your continued insults again only reflect on you.
I intentionally gave you an easy out and you chose not to take it. Choices have consequences.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “No, I didn’t. “Both” indicates two, but “both” does not imply “completely separate,” much less does it imply “conflating” things that are “completely separate.” It’s easy to come up with examples where we say “both” for two things that are connected (e.g., conjoined twins, links in a bracelet). In this case, I’m referring to both statements where they’re connected in a response.”
Again you have removed all doubt that you’re a fool and at the same wrote a signature significant comment that shows others that you’re either ignorant or a shill and your moniker “CommitToHonestDiscussion” is truly an oxymoron, you have absolutely no interest in honest discussion if that honesty doesn’t go along with your opinion.
We’re done here, Ms. Shill.
P.S. I don’t think you’re an idiot so you must be a shill.
Thank you for some well needed logic. Too bad it is wasted on this blog.
The flames need to be fanned. He shouldn’t concede because he didn’t lose. If God forbid, Biden becomes president he will be it in name only–he will always be illegitimate Joe as will illegitimate Kamala. When the left decides to jettison illegitimate Joe about six months into this.
smander wrote, “He shouldn’t concede because he didn’t lose.”
No smander this works both ways, we have to wait until all the states have certified their elections and the legal challenges are satisfied before any conclusion can be made; the Electoral College votes in December if all the election certifications are done properly otherwise it goes to the House of Representatives.
There is a Constitutional process that must be properly completed before the Presidential election is over.
Like I told Joe Friday above, take a pill.
we have to wait until all the states have certified their elections and the legal challenges are satisfied before any conclusion can be made; the Electoral College votes in December if all the election certifications are done properly otherwise it goes to the House of Representatives.
There is a Constitutional process that must be properly completed before the Presidential election is over.
Steve,
Now who would have a problem with that? Our electoral process allows for legal challenges.There’s a reason the Electoral College doesn’t meet until December. There’s a reason a process is in place to have the winner decided in the House. Some people apparently don’t like our constitutional processes. Shocker!
OLLY,
This and the blog post that inspired it might be of interest to you.
I will check it out, thanks.
Spun, not spinned
Spun, not spinned.
Trump should concede. Those who voted for him should concede that they went in the polls dumb and came out dumb too. Hustling round Hoboken in their alligator shoes.
Dear Maddog,
You definitely are a Mad Dog.