Election 2020

A Phased Transition to Inauguration

|

President Donald Trump is still in denial about the outcome of the presidential election. That is, perhaps, an understandable human reaction to such a loss, but the presidency is an office that demands that the occupant be able to overcome some of their all-too-human emotions. Admittedly, Trump is not a run-of-the-mill president.

It is important that presidents be able to deliver an appropriate concession speech. It is not legally necessary for a sitting president to concede that he has lost. The loss is real regardless of whether it is acknowledged by the chief executive, and the current incumbent will no longer perform the duties of his office after the inauguration of his successor. But as Joe Biden demonstrated with his victory speech, concession speeches are important moments for reuniting the country after a hard-fought electoral campaign.

Democratic elections are by their nature divisive, and they are all the more so in our current polarized age. We tolerate and even encourage the citizenry to divide itself into partisans under competing banners and struggle with their fellow Americans for control over the levers of political power. Campaigns can be personal and bitter. The stakes of an election can be high. But when the election is over, we need to reunite under a common flag and take up our common identity as American citizens with allegiance to a common government. Politicians facilitate that task by encouraging their supporters to beat their metaphorical swords into plowshares, to accept the loss, and move on to the shared task of governing under a new leader. The competitor must accept their new role as part of the loyal opposition. Partisans must lick their wounds and bide their time until they can once again contest for leadership.

Donald Trump has thus far continued to encourage divisiveness rather than reconciliation. This is a dangerous state of affairs that is corrosive of a democratic civil order. He is not the first sore loser who might continue to question the legitimacy of the electoral victor, but he is the most prominent and perhaps the least restrained. It should be hoped that he will eventually embrace a post-presidential role that will serve the country and do honor to his historical reputation, but such hopes might well be disappointed.

More immediately, the Trump administration has not yet accepted the electoral loss, and that has implications for the presidential transition. The transition between administrations is a monumental task, and a smooth transition is all the more important in the midst of the difficult situation created by the ongoing pandemic. The head of the General Services Administration, which manages presidential transitions, has not yet begun the process. That does not prevent Biden from beginning to prepare his administration, but it severely hampers the planning and coordination that is necessary for continuity of governance. It cannot reasonably be expected that the head of the GSA will act contrary to the will of the president, but the president must quickly (if privately and quietly) release her to perform her duties for facilitating the transition.

The Trump administration should distinguish itself from the Trump campaign. Trump should recognize that Biden is the presumptive president-elect and allow the executive branch to begin planning accordingly. The Trump campaign can continue to contest the election results, pursuing recounts and litigation as it feels necessary to satisfy the president that he has indeed lost. If necessary, the campaign could drag that out for weeks until elections results are certified by the states and presidential electors are designated and ultimately cast their ballots. None of that necessitates that the transition planning be put on hold.

There is good reason for the Trump administration to accept that planning for a transition is necessary at this point. The initial count of votes is nearly complete. The path to victory for the Trump campaign through recounts and litigation is essentially non-existent. The situation might be different if Biden's electoral vote total were smaller, but a 76-vote gap cannot be closed by changing the result in a state or two. The situation might be different if the gap between Biden's vote total and Trump's in a large number of states was extremely small, but it is not. This is not the 2000 election, where everything turned on a small number of votes in a single large state. Winning a recount in one or even two states would make no difference to the ultimate outcome.

The math for a Trump victory simply does not work at this point.

state vote gap percentage gap electoral votes Biden's lead
GA 10,353 0.21% 16 44
AZ 16,985 0.52% 11 22
WI 20,540 0.63% 10 2
PA 45,727 0.68% 20 (38)
NV 34,283 2.65% 6 (50)
MI 146,123 2.69% 16 (82)

 

Biden has a 76 electoral vote lead on Trump. There are four states that Biden won and where the candidates are currently separated by less than one percent. The number of votes that would have to be switched are in the tens of thousands in each state. The prospect of switching those votes in any single state through some combination of recount and litigation is extremely small. Trump would need to swing all four in order to overcome Biden's apparent electoral vote lead, or alternatively pick off some number of them and add some states where the gap is much wider.

Even if you are convinced—and there is no reason for you to think so given any known facts—that there were significant irregularities in the voting or in the vote counting, and you were convinced that all those irregularities worked in the favor of Biden, the odds that any such irregularities were large enough and distributed in just the right states that, if corrected, Trump would be proven to be the legal winner of the election are essentially nil.

It is time for transition planning to begin, and really it is time for Trump to concede that he has lost and bring his campaign to a close. Even if he cannot yet bring himself to do the latter, there is no excuse not to do the former.

UPDATE: I adjusted the post (including the chart) to correct and clarify a point about the vote gap and how many states need to flip to get to a Trump victory.

NEXT: SCOTUS Adds Another Appointments Clause Case to the Docket

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump should not concede until the vote fraud has been thoroughly investigated.

    Nor should Trump cooperate with anyone on the Biden team on anything unless it’s critically necessary to avoid a war or something.

    Letting them get away with stealing an election directly undermines democracy — something a lot of people on this board pretend to care about.

    1. The “vote fraud” …

      It’s evidence-free fantasy of Trump deadenders.

      Cause those Dems, they can’t even commit fraud right — letting all those GOP Senators keep their seats, GOP House members win their elections, and state legislators retain control.

      The only “vote fraud” that occurred was the USPS cheating in favor of Trump.

      The evidence of the USPS scam is real, too. Not fantasy.

      1. There are eyewitness affidavits. That’s “evidence”. You are being facially dishonest.

        1. Hard to take your demands we take voter fraud seriously when you are this fundamentally unserious about voter fraud claims.

          You’re so credulous you believe Project Veritas nonsense without any validation.

          You should strive to be less of a tool than Lindsey Graham.

          1. I believe it is “evidence”. The responsible thing to do would be to conduct a thorough, transparent investigation. That’s what I’m calling for.

            Maybe it will turn out to be the mother of all coincidences and all the suspicious numbers and actions will turn out to be nothing.

            Democracy matters, so it’s worth investigating. People on the board pretend to care about democracy sometimes.

            1. Yup, people are saying. We’ve got to take it seriously.

              Ben, Trump has been suckering marks for decades. Right now, he is sending out hourly appeals, begging fools to send money to back his “vote fraud,” lawsuits. Don’t be a mark.

              1. That money is earmarked to pay off Melania’s prenup when she divorces Trump. If there is one lesson to take from the Trump years—always have a PRENUP!!

              2. Trump wasn’t in the room when the alleged frauds took place. It’s not his testimony. His credibility is irrelevant to whether fraud happened or didn’t.

        2. There are eyewitness affidavits. That’s “evidence”

          So far the stuff I have seen has been hearsay and conjecture, and the courts have treated it as such.

          I am probably a little more open to this sort of thing than many folks, because I do know that in actuality, almost every election has foul-ups and it can be a somewhat healthy process to put a bunch of lawyers on it and bring some of them to light.

          But, in terms of reversing an election result, even in one particular state, there’s been no evidence of anything that would justify that.

          1. Here you go.

            This is a sworn affidafit by Richard Hopkins, a Postal Worker in Erie, PN.

            He heard his supervisor directly tell another employee to backdate the ballots received on November 4th, as if they were received on November 3rd.

            Keep in mind, this isn’t a “foul-up”. This is deliberate fraud.

            https://www.scribd.com/document/483364370/NOTARIZE-Affidavit-richardHopkins

            1. Yeah, that seems like the air-tight ship we’d expect from this kind of widespread fraud.

              1. So, you admit there is evidence of fraud here, eh Sarcarstro?

                1. Sure, it’s evidence. I don’t think it’s credible on it’s face given its substance, but it’s evidence.

                  1. Why is it not credible?

                    There is a similar one from an election worker in NV.

                    1. I would say it’s credible enough to at least begin an investigation. I note one relevant omission which I would have expected to see covered. The affidavit talks about when the ballots were picked up. It says not a word about picked up where, or when the ballots were mailed. Without proof the ballots were mailed too late, is there anything there? Was that somehow alleged in the affidavit, and I missed it?

                  2. A sworn affidafit by a USPS postal worker is not “credible”?

                    Why not? Do you have any evidence to suggest it isn’t credible?

            2. Let’s note as well that the presidential vote in Erie was Biden 67,000-Trump 66,000. Even if you credit this account, which way the actual ballots in question went was a coin flip.

            3. Maybe someone can explain to me why a supposed postal worker from Erie, PA, has their affidavit signed by a notary in Texas? All of the legitimate notaries in PA were too busy? Unavailable?

              And his first thought was to go to Project Veritas (lol) instead of the postal inspectors (lol)?

              What’s the penalty for filing a false affidavit? To whom was this affidavit given?

              Given his need to include his own hypothesis and presumptions, this doesn’t strike me as highly credible. Seems to me more of someone who has an axe to grind.

              One thing it most certainly is not: evidence of widespread voter fraud and the stealing of an election.

              1. Jason Cavanaugh : Seems to me more of someone who has an axe to grind

                Speaking of which, this today from the Tweeter-in-Chief : “Mark Esper has been terminated”

                The snit-show has begun!

                1. I ask legitimate questions and you respond with bullshit.

                  That’s the only thing you Trumpers are good at.

                2. Jason Cavanaugh : That’s the only thing you Trumpers are good at…..

                  Wow. First time I’ve ever been accused of that! Meanwhile, the Snit-Show continues with more news from today:

                  “The White House removed the official in charge of the federal program that produces the U.S. government’s definitive reports on climate change. The official, Michael Kuperberg, a climate scientist who had been executive director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program since July 2015, was told Friday evening to return to his previous position as a scientist at the Energy Department. He had been expected to stay on through the production of the fifth edition of the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment”

                  We could take odds whether Trump fires more enemies (real or imagined) that he pardons cronies, but it’s always best to bet on the negative with trump. People are predicting the next victims of his spleen will be FBI Director Christopher Wray and/or CIA Director Gina Haspel. He might decapitate most of the national security leadership of this country out of pure childish rage.

                  It’s now 72 days and a wakeup ’til Inauguration Day and there’s no limit to the mischief our toddler-in-chief is capable of…..

                  1. It seemed to me that you were accusing me of being someone with an axe to grind? Was that not your intent?

                    If you were agreeing with me, then I misunderstood and offer my apologies. That was obviously not how I took it.

                    1. No problem; it was a clumsy segue on my part. Also, I’ve done the exact same thing myself : Misread a response at a glance & torched some poor schmuck I actually agreed with. It’s the internet!

            4. Even if we accept this claim on its face “I heard someone say that they did something, but I did not witness it,” any such claim runs into a brick wall.

              By court order, any ballot that arrived in Pennsylvania electoral offices after election day (regardless of when it was postmarked) has been held in “quarantine,” has not been counted, and is not part of the released vote count.

              In other words, even if all of those ballots got tossed by a court, it would not change the vote totals any.

            5. Oh snap! 404 EVIDENCE NOT FOUND

              https://thehill.com/homenews/house/525417-pennsylvania-postal-worker-recants-ballot-tampering-allegations-officials

              “#USPS IG investigators informed Committee staff today that they interviewed Hopkins on Friday, but that Hopkins RECANTED HIS ALLEGATIONS yesterday and did not explain why he signed a false affidavit.”

              Well, shit. There goes your grand conspiracy. I guess those of us who questioned his credibility were right (again).

        3. “There are eyewitness affidavits.”

          There aren’t any eyewitness affidavits of vote fraud. That’s why you keep getting told there’s no evidence of vote fraud.

      2. After all the crap the Republicans have pulled in this election to complain about vote fraud by Democrats is ridiculous.

        The USPS business.

        Two blatant attempts to suppress Democratic votes in TX.

        Telling ex-felons in FL they can only vote if they pay their (often exorbitant) fines and fees, and then refusing to tell them hiw much they owed.

        Barring curbside voting in AL despite the fact the law explicitly allows counties to implement it.

        Closing polling places and creating long lines in Black communities in GA. (Aren’t you glad Roberts dumped that pesky preclearance business?)

        So the cheating is on the Republican side.

        1. Telling ex-felons in FL they can only vote if they pay their (often exorbitant) fines and fees, and then refusing to tell them hiw much they owed.

          FWIW, my recollection on this was that the 11th Circuit opinion (which was shortcutted to en banc review in a really bad, politically charged process) did not call for disenfranchisement of anyone where the fee amount could not be established, and I think those people actually did vote if they were registered.

          I have all sorts of problems with the way Florida nullified the initiative on this, but the “they can’t figure out the fee amount” did not disenfranchise any felons who registered to vote (though it might have deterred registration).

          1. “I have all sorts of problems with the way Florida nullified the initiative on this…”

            The initiative said that folks had to complete all terms of their sentence before they could vote. If you have problems, it’s with the initiative, not the implementation.

            1. The initiative WAS written badly. Indeed, I think the 11th Circuit opinion was defensible on the merits (but not the fast track procedure, which was clearly an attempt by the en banc court to get it in before the election).

              However, that doesn’t mean that the Florida Legislature acted honorably. They passed the worst possible “interpretation” of the initiative and were clearly hoping to nullify voter intent.

              1. I went back and looked at the news accounts of this initiative prior to the vote, and, no, the legislature implemented it exactly as the backers were describing it.

                Then the backers themselves changed their interpretation of their own initiative after it was safely passed.

                The only complaint here that’s valid is that the state is not providing a clear accounting of how much is owed. Which would have been a reasonable complaint even without the initiative.

                1. You were not the only one looking back at what the backers had said prior to the vote.

                  The Florida Supreme Court itself noted that the backers had expressly included fines etc in their court filings and in oral argument during the court hearings prior to the initiative being approved as a ballot initiative. And had then changed their tune in court hearings after the vote.

          2. “FWIW, my recollection on this was that the 11th Circuit opinion (which was shortcutted to en banc review in a really bad, politically charged process) did not call for disenfranchisement of anyone where the fee amount could not be established, and I think those people actually did vote if they were registered.”

            The result here was pretty confusing, to be honest. The district court had created a mechanism by which Florida was required to either tell felons how much they owed or let them vote. The state and the circuit court took the position that it was up to the felon to know how much they had to pay, that they wouldn’t stop them if no one knew how much they owed, but that it was potentially an illegal registration if they voted despite knowing they hadn’t paid their fines. So..I’d say the 11th Circuit mostly punted on the issue and left a lot of ambiguity for potential voters.

        2. “Telling ex-felons in FL they can only vote if they pay their (often exorbitant) fines and fees, and then refusing to tell them hiw much they owed.”

          The latter is a reasonable complaint, and should at least be good for an as applied challenge for any felon not given a clear bill to pay.

          But the initiative was actually sold to the voters are requiring the felons to pay off any financial components of the their sentence. The backers didn’t change their tune on that until they’d won.

          1. ” the initiative was actually sold to the voters are requiring the felons to pay off any financial components of the their sentence. ”

            So adding fees after sentencing is not Ok per Brett. Good luck selling this to your buds in Florida.

    2. Didn’t Al Gore get 6 weeks????

      1. Al wanted them to count all the votes, not find a way to invalidate the ones that weren’t for him.

    3. “Trump should not concede until the vote fraud has been thoroughly investigated. ”

      Here’s the investigation: If the Democrats have a widespread vote fraud operation, why does Mitch McConnell still have a government job?

  2. As I recall the Obama admin’s transition planning included planning for their four year “resistance” by wire tapping the Trump transition team. That resulted in years of acrimony and was unprecedented in its collusion and obstruction of justice by the democrats and bureaucratic institutions. You talk about corrosive attempts to be divisive as bad for democracy, yet you say nothing about democrat’s efforts to overthrow a legally elected president.

    At this point, why should we concede. Biden’s plans eclipse those of Obama’s and should result in even more debt, less growth, and more divisiveness along with continued erosion of civil rights.

    1. As I recall the Obama admin’s transition planning included planning for their four year “resistance” by wire tapping the Trump transition team.

      You recall incorrectly.

      1. The Obama FBI spied on the Trump campaign.

        Are you trying to split hairs over whether it was “wire-tapping”? Or are you just doing the usual Democrat thing where you simply deny in the face of incontrovertible, proven facts?

        1. Comey and McCabe are Republicans. Rosenstein was a Republican Trump appointee that signed the last FISA application AND appointed Mueller. And Trump is the moron that appointed obvious future backstabbers like Tillerson and Bolton. Face it—Trump is an imbecile that got lucky that W Bush bankrupted the GOP and then Democrats irresponsibly nominated Hillary Clinton to be their nominee.

          1. I don’t care what the political affiliation of the Obama appointees and deep staters was, they spied on Trump and his campaign and used evidence manufactured by DNC and Clinton operatives to do it.

            The IG and the FISA court both said the FBI lied and “made mistakes”, at least 17 of them to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump’s campaign.

            You can split hairs and say they didn’t prove that their was no basis for an investigation, but it is clearly established that there was no legal basis to use FISA to spy on the Trump campaign.

            1. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the FBI operates. The FBI isn’t political and Obama appointing Comey was supposed to be a favor to Senate Republicans with the hope they would be more likely to approve Obama’s other appointees. So the fact Rosenstein approved the final FISA application undermines your argument that the Obama administration was playing any dirty tricks. I agree with you about the Deep State but the more precise term for the “Deep State” is “Bush loyalists”…and the reality is you can’t face the facts about how awful the Bush dynasty has been for America and you will end up supporting George P Bush in a few years.

              1. The warrants were illegal, and the investigation was discussed at the highest level of the Obama administration, Obama, Biden, Yates, Comey, with special instructions from Obama that the investigators should be hand picked so “the right people” were in charge.

                That is all documented. There is no getting around the fact the warrants were illegal, and Obama appointees signed off on them, including Yates and Comey, and they were based on Russian disinformation compiled and paid for by DNC operatives.

                None of that can be factually disputed, but you can do some hand waving.

                1. You’re in full-on fiction land now.

                  That is all documented.
                  By like Gateway Pundit, I’m sure. special instructions from Obama that the investigators should be hand picked so “the right people” were in charge my ass.

                2. You are a nitwit—Rosenstein signed the final FISA application!! Rosenstein was a Trump appointee!! Case closed!! Move on with your life!!

              2. The warrants were illegal, and the investigation was discussed at the highest level of the Obama adminstration, Obama, Biden, Yates, Comey, with special instructions from Obama that the investigators should be hand picked so “the right people” were in charge.

                That is all documented in Sally Yates and Peter Strzoks declassified notes. There is no getting around the fact the warrants were illegal, and Obama appointees signed off on them, including Yates and Comey, and they were based on Russian disinformation compiled and paid for by DNC operatives.

                None of that can be factually disputed, but you can do some hand waving.

                1. Let’s start with some quotes from the Horowitz report :

                  1. “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations”

                  In short, the Inspector General found no bias.

                  2. “We found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign.”

                  In short, the Inspector General found no spying.

                  3. “These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later, and we therefore determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening”

                  In short, the Inspector General found the Right’s fixation on Steele is gibberish. Kazinski whines on&on about “the warrants”, being totally clueless that those problematic “warrants” all concerned one man – Carter Page – who the FBI was investigating years before any involvement with Trump. The first FISA warrant on Page dates back to 2014 (pre-Trump); the next warrant was in October 2016 (post-Trump). And (to be fair) Page barely had any involvement with the Trump campaign in-between.

                  Carter Page is a two-bit side-show, and all the whining, wailing and snowflake tears can’t make him anything more. The Russians tried to recruit him but decided he was a clown. (There is an actual U.S. intelligence intercept overhearing talk of this). The FBI worried over him for years, then decided he was a clown too. It’s absolutely hilarious to watch Right-types claim Page as the centerpiece to some Deep State conspiracy against Trump.

                  But understandable. Horowitz demolished every single tin-foil-hat meme the Right had running on Operation Crossfire. The only thing left standing to grab was mistreatment of tiny little Carter Page. Therefore the poor dumbass has to be somehow be significant. Unfortunately, he’s not.

                  Here’s a hint : Horowitz reported on lengthy multiple investigations into the whole of Trump’s campaign. If Carter Page is your only talking point from the Inspector General’s findings, then you have nothing.

                  Get used to the feeling. It’ll be the same with Durham as well.

          2. Comey was no Republican.
            However all of your screaming “BUT REPUBLICAN!”, does not change the fact the FBI ran a counter intelligence investigation on the Trump Transition team….This was after the FBI agents, doing the investigation declared they had found zero derogatory intelligence against the campaign and ordered Crossfire Hurricane,(Trump), and Crossfire Razor (Flynn) to be closed.

            This is all from FBI documents declassified and made public.

            1. Comey maxed out donations to McStain and Romney when they ran against Obama…that’s like the guy that says he isn’t gay his boyfriend is. 😉

          3. Charlie Baker and Mitt Romney purport to be Republicans.

            Your point is????

            1. Comey maxed out donations to McStain and Romney when they ran against Obama.

        2. Ben_ : “The Obama FBI spied on the Trump campaign”

          The Inspector General of the Justice Department found the exact opposite. There were sufficient reason to open an investigation into links between Russia and Trump campaign aides in 2016 and the FBI acted without political bias. Those are the documented conclusions of Michael E. Horowitz.

          He also found the F.B.I. did not send informants or undercover agents to meet with campaign officials before opening Crossfire Hurricane, place any informants inside the campaign or ask the informants it did rely on to “report on the Trump campaign,” as Trump and his allies have insinuated.

          You can still hope Durham will validate your fantasies, but prepare to be disappointed again.

          1. Look, you’re confusing the the FBI having an initial excuse to spy on his campaign, with them not having spied on it. They absolutely spied on it, and continued well after their excuse ran out, lying to the FISA court in multiple applications to keep the surveillance going. For instance, contacting one of Steele’s sources, and telling the court that he (The source) seemed to be reliable, but not that the source said Steele was feeding them BS.

            And the AG didn’t find that the FBI acted without political bias. He found that there was bias aplenty, but that nobody had confessed in writing to having been motivated by it. So, not being a mind reader, he couldn’t prove that’s why they’d done it.

            Maybe they just routinely lie to obtain warrants. That is sadly plausible.

            1. Comey is a fairly typical incompetent Bush Republican…so incompetence explains most things with that particular group of government workers.

              1. Ya know, I’m a great believer that we should come together – Left & Right – and celebrate the common bonds that unite us across the political divide :

                We all hate James Comey.

                1. And McCabe…he leaked a few days before the election that the Clinton Foundation investigation was likely to end with an indictment of Hillary.

            2. Brett (1) : And the AG didn’t find that the FBI acted without political bias.

              Yes he did. Overall, Horowitz’s report found no evidence that the FBI and Justice Department acted with political bias in the broad frame of the Russia investigation.

              Brett (2) : “….and continued well after their excuse ran out, lying to the FISA court in multiple applications to keep the surveillance going”

              That would be re Carter Page, who was the subject of a (FISA) warrant in 2014, two years before any contact with Trump, and then the target of new warrants after his involvement with DJT ended. I don’t claim to be a Page Expert, but my sense is he was the equivalent of a “c**ktease”, trolling the Russian waters to score easy cash without ever abandoning his “virtue”. There’s an intercept of Russian intelligence agents that suggests they decided he was a clown longer before the FBI.

              Brett (3) : Maybe they just routinely lie to obtain warrants. That is sadly plausible.

              Of course they do. Did you think otherwise?

              https://www.npr.org/2019/12/09/785525132/justice-department-watchdog-report-on-russia-investigation-due-monday

              1. Brett (1) : And the AG didn’t find that the FBI acted without political bias.

                grb : Yes he did. Overall, Horowitz’s report found no evidence that the FBI and Justice Department acted with political bias in the broad frame of the Russia investigation.

                No he didn’t. And I’m sure we’ve done this before.

                https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/18/doj-ig-admits-there-was-potential-bias-motivating-trump-campaign-surveillance/

                “Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?” Hawley asked.

                “We did not reach that conclusion,” Horowitz testified.

                “Because I could have sworn, in fact, I know for a fact that I’ve heard that today from this committee. That’s not your conclusion?” Hawley clarified.

                Horowitz : We have been very careful in the connection with the FISA’s for the reasons you mentioned not to reach that conclusion in part – as we’ve talked about earlier – the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.

              2. 1) The AG failed to find that they acted with political bias. This isn’t the same thing as finding that they acted without political bias. He found bias, he found wrongful actions, but found no proof that the wrongful actions were due to the bias.

                Maybe they just coincidentally performed actions that their bias would have provided motivation for them to do. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men? Not Horowitz.

                DOJ watchdog tells Senate he has deep concerns about FBI errors in Russia probe

                “Horowitz also said he could not rule out political bias as a possible motivation for the 17 errors the FBI made in applications for the Page surveillance.

                “Can you say it wasn’t because of political bias?” Graham asked.

                “I do not know,” Horowitz replied.

                Graham asked Horowitz about an op-ed by former FBI James Comey, who proclaimed that the IG report vindicated him.

                “You know, I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this,” Horowitz replied.”

                So much for his finding “that the FBI acted without political bias.” He explicitly denied finding that.

                As for Page not being in the Trump campaign/administration the whole time they had warrants to wiretap his conversations, you have heard of “contact chaining”, right? You don’t conduct survailance against a Presidential candidate or President elect by getting a warrant on them. You do it by getting a warrant on somebody near them, and playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

                1. Rosenstein signed the final FISA application…move on with your life.

                  1. IIRC, he also wrote a memo recommending firing Comey, and then used Comey being fired as the predicate for appointing an independent counsel. So your point is?

              3. Anyone who’s paying attention can see the sleight-of-hand here. I speak of the Inspector General’s conclusions about the entire investigation into the whole of the Trump campaign. Mr. Moore and Mr. Bellmore focus their microscopes on the one tiny little area where Horowitz identified problems.

                Yes, the Inspector General had issues with the FBI’s treatment of Page – a Bureau target years before Page’s brief involvement with Trump. But I talk about Horowitz’s conclusions whether the FBI spied on Trump (they didn’t) and whether they showed bias against Trump (no).

                If it helps move things along, I stipulate the G-men acted poorly to little Carter Page – though he seems a bit too shady to qualify as the perfect victim. (People who make a martyr out of sleazy trash like Michael Flynn wouldn’t have a problem with that tho)

          2. That was not the finding of Horowitz. He reported he was unable to identify political motivation to the spying. Understand that IG’s can investigate only within the organization they are assigned to. For instance, they do not have the power to talk to persons no longer at the agency. Those that were forced to resign? Nope, cant interview them. The IG has no power to compel testimony. In effect, Horowitz asked supervisors of they were motivated by politics, they said no. End of question.

        3. “The Obama FBI spied on the Trump campaign. ”

          The Obama FBI (and NSA) spied on the Russians. They caught the Trump campaign calling the Russians.

    2. Your grievance-tinged memories aside (the wiretapping charge is, of course, nonsense, as the IG and Senate have found multiple times), this is different – this is politicals sabotaging a civil-servant mediated process.

      At this point, why should we concede.
      Because we live in a fucking republic.

      1. Used to be a republic with meaningful elections.

        1. How long has it been since a first term Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote? George H W Bush.
          At least George W Bush was able to get re-elected with a majority the second time around.

          1. Perhaps the final Republican to finish ahead of the Democrat in a national election during our lifetimes.

      2. In one respect you are probably correct. No actual wiretapping may have occurred, but the cell phone of Carter page was monitored both for metadata and for the content of the calls. Wiretapping is a term for intercepting conversations sent over telephone wires, so you can probably feel superior about being right about the lack.
        However, the FBI did monitor electronic communications.
        Sort of like calling the selection of judges of whom you do not approve ‘court packing,’ and naming the desire to add members to the Supreme Court as ‘modernization.’

        1. I’m not making some pedantic argument.

          The procedures were found to be legit and well founded by numerous, oft-Republican-lead, investigations.

          1. Do we need to review the difference between, “Legally wiretapped”, and “didn’t wiretap”?

            1. Comey and McCabe are Republicans. I thought you would be exited about the prospect of the GOP returning to its roots of slaughtering babies in Iraq, shipping jobs to China, and turning Mexicans into Americans!! George P Bush 2024!!!! Make America Shitty Again!!!

            2. Read the OP, Brett. The argument is that this action ‘was unprecedented in its collusion and obstruction of justice by the democrats and bureaucratic institutions’

          2. “The procedures were found to be legit and well founded by numerous,”

            I thought that the procedures were found to have significant errors and omissions.

            1. Not the inception of the investigation, which is what the OP is talking about.

              1. Are you seriously defending Comey?? Apparently Hillary was ecstatic when Trump fired his sorry Republican ass!!

              2. The inception of the investigation, which relied on rumors passed on by sketchy informants in bed with big-government backers? I thought the OP’s claim was about the wiretapping, which hinged on outright lies and a forged email submitted to the FISA Court, with signatures up and down the FBI averring (incorrectly) that they followed the Woods procedures.

                1. Plenty of Senate intel and DoDIG materials for you to review if you want to base your opinions on facts.

                2. “The inception of the investigation, which relied on rumors passed on by sketchy informants in bed with big-government backers?”

                  No, the inception of the investigation, which occurred when the monitoring of Russian intelligence operatives noticed that some of the calls TO the spies had originated with the Trump campaign.

          3. There was never a predicate to start a counter intell investigation, that I can find.
            According to the FBI, in a document dated January 4th, 2017, it is recommended by the agents leading the investigation into the Trump Transition Team, no derogatory intelligence existed to continue Crossfire Hurricane (Trump) and Crossfire Razor(Flynn)

            There was never a predicate to spy on Trump

    3. “As I recall the Obama admin’s transition planning included planning for their four year ‘resistance’ by wire tapping the Trump transition team.”

      You recall poorly.

  3. Trump would need to swing all four and also swing the result in two additional states where the margin is well over two percent in order to overcome Biden’s apparent electoral vote lead.

    While I agree with the post, the arithmetic is wrong. Giving Biden GA, Trump NC and AK makes it 306-232. A swing of 38 to Trump would give him the win. PA and two of the other three small-margin states would do it.

    1. Actually just the three closest states would do it – GA, WI, AZ. That would get Trump to 269, which is enough since the GOP will win a majority of the HoR State delegations.

      So Trump would need a total vote switch of 23,941 over the three States. Which is unlikely. Though not quite as unlikely as in previous elections since this election has been, er, unusual.

      Anyway, the important point, which does not change from election, is that it is unwise to rely on lawyers for your arithmetic.

      1. it is unwise to rely on lawyers for your arithmetic.

        On this we agree.

      2. It would be unlikely if those votes were independent. If there really was fraud going on, it becomes significantly less unlikely.

        1. Are you really relying on an argument that there was pro-Biden voter fraud in Arizona despite the fact that Biden was way up on election night and the late counting has been favoring Trump? ‘Cause that seems like pretty much the opposite of the theory in the “blue wall” states.

          Similarly, that the Republican Secretary of State in Georgia is in on the fraud? Or is he just a big dummy being tricked by all the local election authorities?

          1. You’re avoiding the effect local officials can have. Or independent operatives.

            It doesn’t take a Major state official to be in on it for voter fraud. But it sure helps

            1. “You’re avoiding the effect local officials can have.”

              I’m not. “local election authorities” are literally the last three words of my previous post. So I guess you’re saying they’ve just managed to pull the wool over the eyes of Brad Raffensperger?

              But sure, let’s say (arguendo) that local election officials are engaging in trickery in Georgia and the SoS is a big dummy. What’s the theory for fraud in Arizona that’s going to overturn that result since everything after election day has been pro-Trump?

              1. It’s certainly interesting that Broward County’s traditional clustermultiplication seems to have come to an end by the simple mechanism of replacing the county elections supervisor. Ditto Palm Beach.

                Opinions differ, obviously, over how much of those prior clustermultiplications were bugs or features.

            2. So why didn’t Ossoff win?

              If you’re going to screw around with ballots, why not go all out?

          2. “Are you really relying on an argument that there was pro-Biden voter fraud in Arizona despite the fact that Biden was way up on election night and the late counting has been favoring Trump?”

            I am relying on correlated actions being more likely to add up than random actions. It’s a point in statistics, not politics.

            At this point I’m content to wait on the legal proceedings and recounts before insisting I know what happened. Are you?

            1. I actually think it’s fine if Trump doesn’t want to concede until after the state certifications are complete or maybe even when the electors vote.

              I do think that it’s vastly more likely that Biden has won this election than Trump, so there should also be some planning for that probability. The GSA and the Trump administration should put some effort into a transition of power, even if only as a contingency plan since there’s quite a large delay between election day and when the electors meet.

              1. I’m a bit agnostic about who legitimately won, but think it quite likely that Biden is going to end up President, because even if the election was stolen, commingling ballots would assure that the only available remedy would be running the election over again, and I doubt the Court will do that no matter how much proof is presented that there were enough fraudulent ballots to have changed the outcome.

                1. I disagree.

                  If there was sufficient fraud, then the remedy is to not certify the election results.

                2. The courts would have to invalidate the election in that state. Then the House of Representatives of the state, choose the electors to send to DC
                  Unless something like a whistle blower comes forward and can prove 100’s of thousands of fake ballots were dumped and counted, I dont see SCOTUS canceling out voters and replace their vote for that of the state HoR.

              2. “I actually think it’s fine if Trump doesn’t want to concede until after the state certifications are complete or maybe even when the electors vote.”

                Waiting to concede is one thing. Spouting wackadoodlry is what he’s doing, however, and it’s not appealing, and his tendency for this is why he didn’t win in fair elections.

      3. So Trump would need a total vote switch of 23,941 over the three States. Which is unlikely.

        But look on the bright side: after nearly a week of frantically beating the bushes for any evidence of such a switch, you only have, let’s see, 23,941 to go. Progress!

  4. He has to show for once that the country is more important than his ego. Yes, he has 70 million plus Americans vote for him – I wasn’t one of them – and has an obligation to defend their vote. That’s fine; and necessary. But at some point, and if we’re not there we are close to it, he has to realize that this election was not stolen and he has to think about more important things than himself.
    And yes, we’ve had four years of some people accusing him of stealing the election, of delegitimizing our election, of injuring our image abroad now turning around and are aghast at his behavior. And a recklessly irresponsible news media going along. Sorry if I’m not viewing your concerns as anything but raw partisanship.

    1. Trump’s duty is foremost to the Constitution.
      Not his voters.

      But neither he, nor the GOP Senators, nor the FOX state television give a damn about the Constitution.

      1. According to the Constitution, is Biden the president-elect right now?

        1. No. According to every competent, informed adult in America, however, Joseph R. Biden is Pres.-elect.

          To a braying army of education-deprived bigots, superstitious hayseeds, and disaffected incels, however, Donald Trump is not Pres.-reject but instead is poised to claim his position as rightful winner.

          I thank the Republican Party for choosing all of the gullible hicks in the voter draft. So far as I can tell, the Democrats weren’t able to get a single one.

    2. Fine to wait for recounts and conclusion of reasonable legal challenges, but Trump should definitely not follow Clinton’s advice to not concede under any circumstance. Once the legal challenge is decided, he needs to ensure his supporters understand that he accepts rule of law.

      1. ..well… once Trump himself comes to that understanding, which is unlikely. His actions to date, including issues with the Trump Foundation finances, his own campaign finances, and possibly trying to get his Postmaster General to delay ballots seems at odds with the “Rule of Law.”

      2. His conceding or not has nothing to do with the vitality of the rule of law in the US.

        1. I just don’t want his supporters to act like the 2016 Resistance and question Biden’s legitimacy for several years, then riot across the US in 2024. Whether or not you care, Trump’s concession will impact the attitudes of millions of Americans toward our government(s).

    3. ” he has to think about more important things than himself.”

      To reach this point, he will first have to come to grips with the very concept that things more important than himself is a category that exists.
      Don’t bet on that proposition.

  5. Random “irregularities” might not be distributed perfectly to put Biden over the top. It would take a massive coincidence that defies credibility.

    On the other hand, a purposeful effort to steal the election would look exactly like what we are currently seeing. Just enough in just the right places.

    1. Yes, Reagan stole the 1980 election.

      Why, because he and Biden are the only two candidates to unseat an incumbent president while the party of the losing incumbent retained control of at least 1 house of Congress.

      Anyone think Reagan’s victory was a fraud?
      I didn’t think so.

      Neither is Biden’s.

      More Americans than not were sick of Trump’s infantile behavior.
      No more complicated than that.

      1. BTW, do you concede that the Kennedy election in 1960 was stolen? Because the historical consensus is that it was.

        1. Prior to Wikipedia those discussions always involved the context of the national popular vote. So with 1960 and 1992 now everyone has access to the EC vote numbers.

      2. I remember an article (some years ago so perhaps no longer valid) documenting that the greatest predictor of whether the American or National conference would win the superbowl was whether women’s skirt fashion was above or below the knee. Your comparison is even more bizarre.

    2. 1. Trump’s loss was the result of an illegal conspiracy the Democrats have been preparing for years. Said conspiracy has infected multiple state governments and dozens of municipalities, as well as their investigative arms and judiciaries. They are capable of swinging any election undetectably to the Democratic candidate, and are financed by a shadowy network of billionaires who fund the conspiracy through transfers that are equally undetectable by the banks and financial system.
      Every single person of the thousands involved in these conspiracies is absolutely, completely loyal to the cause and will never admit a word of their involvement, no matter how the media and conservatives tempt them. Any victory by the Democrats in any election that is even vaguely competitive is solely due to this conspiracy.

      or

      2. Trump got fewer votes.

      1. Have you ever heard the term, straw-man argument?

        1. These are the requirements for Ben’s claims to hold water. If you think otherwise, explain.

          1. No, they aren’t. Except in your head. See my comments below.

          2. Explanation: it’s not like the story you are imagining. It’s a lot of other things. Different in different places.

      2. Is Antifa a conspiracy? Or is it just a bunch of people acting independently with similar tactics?

        If it’s the latter, does it still exist? Broken windows and burned structures argue the answer is yes.

        Election fraud doesn’t have to be a specifically organized conspiracy to exist either. An investigation is needed. Maybe it’s all a massive coincidence that defies statistical probability.

        1. So voter fraud is a movement, not coordinated but nevertheless effective, and financed by who knows who, and also somehow leakless despite being widespread.

          You’re just not a serious person.

          1. No, it is you who are not serious.

            It is really very simple. Democrats wanted Biden to win. And Democrats control election machinery in many places where it would help him win by cheating. So everyone did their part, and that potentially included those who went over the line.

            1. This is so wispy it’s not even an argument. ‘Democrats’ ‘many places’ ‘everyone did their part.’

              This isn’t even a legitimate fan-fiction.

              1. We might be remotely inclined to accept your argument as seriously meant — although not valid — if your side had not spent the last six months (and, really, several preceding years) making exactly the opposite argument.

            2. If they controlled the election machinery in Georgia, they would have taken control of the Senate. Would you concede Georgia as legitimate or would you maintain that it was fraudulent but had an oversight where they forgot about the Senate races.

            3. Did Democrats also not want to control the Senate? And to lose seats in the House? Democrats’ motivations are strange things.

              1. Paraphrasing Insane Clown Posse: “Fuckin’ electoral districts, how do they work?”

          2. Because changing one number to another requires funding? Getting a bunch of ballots and voting them costs … how much?

            Why can’t it be investigated?

            1. Yeah, you need $$ to subvert machines and people. A cost-free all-volunteer conspiracy would be pretty unprecedented.

              1. Who paid for Antifa?

                1. It doesn’t take a lot of money to sponsor a rock thru a window. Wanna know one reason why I know your vote fraud conspiracy talk is useless? Because it’s like your Antifa gibberish. You’ve had months to “uncover” conspiracies, secret organizations & pipelines of funding, yet criminal rioting remain nothing more than criminals rioting. Here’s one thing certain : If Trump & the Justice Department could find an “Antifa” that was more than an internet echo chamber and random thugs on the street, we’d have heard about it by now (in spades). Your voting fraud shtick is even more hopelessly tin-foil-hat.

                  There’s a second reason : Voting fraud fanatic Trump created a voting fraud commission, stocked it with voting fraud fanatic members and appointed a voting fraud mega-fanatic to head it. And how much voting fraud did it find? Almost zero, which is how much there is….

                  1. No conspiracy was alleged. Keep fighting that strawman.

                    I just want a transparent recount and investigation. Why are you afraid of that?

                    1. And all I want is a transparent investigation into whether you beat your wife. Why are you afraid of that?

                      (speaking of strawmen)

          3. Emergent behavior. The same thing that explains birds flocking.

            1. Conveniently unprovable.

              I was careful to withhold judgment until the election, even as you were not. But now? The reality of January 2021 is going to be painful for you.

              1. Huh? It’s unprovable that you don’t need a conspiracy for pockets of Democrat election workers to cheat on an election?

                You’re not thinking about this carefully enough.

                Pockets of fraud occurring would certainly be provable. Your strawman of a grand election conspiracy being the only theory has a much better explanation. Emergent behavior explains why there could be fraud in five Democrat strongholds without coordination.

                1. Is the idea that if you shrink the size of the conspirators small enough and spread them out wide enough that you can come up with enough votes to turn over three states elections?

                  If the conspirators are small groups of people operating independently without awareness of the others, that means no coordination or help in avoiding detection, then the vote changes would have to be small in number or risk detection. And the odds of thousands of these small actors would be successful without some of them being caught outright is infinitesimal. A wide-spread, uncoordinated effort by a bunch of zealots is going to be easy to spot–like Antifa thugs throwing rocks through windows.

                  It’s just as likely that the underwear gnomes stole the election along with all the GOP’s tighty whities.

                  1. They’re getting caught now. We have numerous sworn affidavits from USPS workers, election workers and poll watchers in MI, PA, and NV already.

                    We have some eye-opening data science strongly suggesting fraud in these areas.

                    It’s too early to close the book and claim the bad guys got away with it. It’s unfolding before our very eyes right now.

        2. Stop talking sense. If it is not Sarcastro’s cartoon character “conspiracy” then it is on the up and up.

          To add to what you said:

          (1) This was an election that everyone was very intense about. Trump provoked intense reactions, both positive and negative, among the electorate.
          (2) The country was closely divided, and it was clear that the vote was going to be close and Trump was surging at the end, notwithstanding the talk about a Biden landslide.
          (3) The effect of the Electoral College has been clear to anyone interested for 200 years, and to everyone else from the 2016 election. If you are going to cheat to win the presidency, you need to cheat in only four to eight states. The rest are safely red or blue.
          (4) Elections are run state-by-state, and often by local (usually county) authorities with little oversight. The opportunity for underhanded action to help the cause is great.
          (5) In antitrust law, parallel action is not conspiracy. But it is still a good way to accomplish something, like stealing a presidential election. See also point (4). (For that matter, voting itself is like this. The chance of my single vote making a difference, even if I live in a swing state, is virtually zero. And yet people do vote, and in this last election, seem to have done so in droves.)

          To be clear, I think the chance of Trump actually winning is, at this point, miniscule. I also think the chance of there having been no cheating even more miniscule, if not zero. People who cheat are taking a risk, in that if they are caught, they face fines or even jail. So they obviously think their actions have a chance to contributing to their desired result.

          As usual, Trump’s overblown and buffoonish rhetoric distracts from a real issue he has highlighted. This was a very close election, and there is a real history of election cheating in this country. He is right to insist that everything be fully verified before he concedes. He is wrong to charge “fraud” without something more substantial.

          1. This was a very close election, and there is a real history of election cheating in this country. He is right to insist that everything be fully verified before he concedes. He is wrong to charge “fraud” without something more substantial.

            Concur. Let the legal electoral process play out over the next few weeks.

            1. Do you approval Trump’s withholding of transition assistance?

              That issue is unrelated to ‘should assertions of misconduct or error be investigated?’

              1. It matters little if Trump assists or not. The bureaucracy has sufficient inertia and corporate memory to make the transition smooth enough.

              2. The votes have not been fully counted, Arthur. We don’t have a winner yet.

          2. BL, you know what else people sometimes steal? Second base. And if it’s really close, the ump may get it wrong. Don’t want to be a victim of a bad call by the ump? Get there ahead of the throw.

            In this game, the vote counters are the ump, not some court. There is nothing to review, because it ain’t nothin’ ’till the ump says what it is. Trump is already out at second.

            What Trump fans demand would be like having Major League Baseball review the call at second. Then overturn the game outcome weeks after it was played. That has never happened. It’s not going to happen this time.

            By the way, it was a good call anyway.

            1. I think your analogy is good, but doesn’t quite go far enough.

              Trump doesn’t need to overturn one ump’s call. He needs to overturn at least three umps’ calls. And he’s got to do it on the basis of a very blurry video.

          3. It is clear that thousands, perhaps millions, of delusional people in this country would be happy to risk fines and jail to oppose Literally Hitler. But especially when the risk is so low. As a general matter of human nature, people do whatever they think they can get away with.

            1. ‘As a general matter of human nature’ is not an argument.

            2. They may do so but that doesn’t mean they do so competently. Throwing an election in even just 4 states would require a significant number of people to pull off. The argument is they weren’t working together so this means zealots taking matters into their own hands. For this to work, all of them have to be sufficiently skilled in fraud to go undetected–not for their own sake because these are zealots–but for the result to stick and matter. All of them in every state have to be competent at fraud. What are the odds of elected and appointed officials all being secret fraudsters?

              1. That argument doesn’t hold at all. For example, the four states are not uniform in their election codes. All that is required is that powerful local officials in a few big cities, the kind of people who are very well-connected and very familiar with the local election laws and procedures, organize a local effort to engage in electoral fraud.

                For example, your argument implies that it’s implausible for the local officials to have organized an event where Republican observers were illegally locked out of a room where votes were being counted. Yet that happened in at least two states.

              2. A bunch of voter fraud wouldn’t be complicated at all. A trained monkey could do it.

                1. But Trump wouldn’t pay to train his monkeys.

            3. “It is clear that thousands, perhaps millions, of delusional people in this country would be happy to risk fines and jail to oppose Literally Hitler.”

              A bit over 74,000,000 turned up to vote Not Literally Hitler for President. No fines, no jail.

        3. Ben_ : If it’s the latter, does it still exist? Broken windows and burned structures…. (etc)

          Tens of thousands of votes spread over seven or eight states is a bit harder to pull-off than a few broken windows. That you find the two analogous hints how wacko your fantasies are.

          46K in Michigan, 20K in Wisconsin, 45K in Pennsylvania, 17K in Arizona and 11K in Georgia – and you think this all spontaneously germinated into the perfect conspiracy, leaving no trace except an aura only Trump cultists feel via extrasensory perception? All because two people in different cities both see plate glass as a good target for a rock?

          Trump supporters have to learn how to think critically again, and they’ll need to rediscover the benefits of honesty. It’s better they start this process sooner rather than later.

          1. Those are just numbers. An open, transparent recount will tell us whether they are votes.

            1. Numbers of votes that were counted are indeed numbers AND votes.

              1. But numbers that are miscounted or tabulated incorrectly are not votes.

                1. But that’s only true in your imagination, so the rest of us are still good.

                  1. An open, transparent recount is how to know for sure.

                    1. I am confident Pres. Trump and his Republican Party will get a recount where entitled and an investigation where warranted.

                      Other than that, quit whimpering, you pathetic losers.

                    2. And when Trump loses that, you’ll claim fraud in the recount.

                      The same bad actors you claim flipped the election are going to be involved in the recount too, right?

                      Also, there’s nearly 5 Million other things you forgot about… the popular vote gap. If we’re focusing on 100,000 “fraudulent” votes, how do you explain the 2 million more votes Biden got over even what Hillary got? Are saying the random army of zealots only focusing on 4 states really focused on more than 4 to inflate the total vote gap to 5 million votes? (but, again, somehow left the Senate and House candidates high and dry? Does that sound like a zealot?)

                    3. If Trump loses a recanvas in GA, WI, MI, NV, PA and NC and recounting of legal votes only, you won’t see me claiming the election was stolen.

                      Unlike Hillary since 2016 and you clowns since 2000.

                    4. If Trump loses on the recount and an investigation shows no large number of illegitimate votes, then the electors will be chosen and they will vote. And it doesn’t matter what anyone else says.

                      If it is later shown that votes were fraudulent, that will be good for people to know so the system can be improved and the fraudulent voters can be punished.

                    5. “If Trump loses a recanvas in GA, WI, MI, NV, PA and NC and recounting of legal votes only, you won’t see me claiming the election was stolen.”

                      I don’t believe you when you claim this.

                      Trump lost the canvas in 5 of the 6, and you ARE complaining the election was stolen.

            2. I doubt that a recount will tell us anything about whether thousands of these votes are illegitimate, or whether thousands of Trump ballots were tossed, etc.

              1. Investigation and recount. We need both.

              2. Oh God! Now it’s thousands of imaginary Trump ballots……..

          2. “Trump supporters have to learn how to think critically again”

            If they ever could think critically, they wouldn’t have become Trump supporters.

      3. I sure hope #1 is true. Any bunch capable of engineering such a massive feat of organization and doing it all without any leaks among the thousands of people who had to be involved, they must be the most capable folks on earth. I definitely want them running the country.

      4. “illegal conspiracy the Democrats have been preparing for years”

        Sorta. Not anti-Trump per se but a fact of life in big cities with long term Democrat control.

        Democrats buy the voting machines, order the ballots printed, hire the staffs, control the security of the ballots, etc.

        Its always the same. Counts stop in these cities about 2 or so and when they resume, its no longer 80-20 Democrat but 99-1 Democrat.

        Big city political machines have stolen elections since before the Revolution. No reason to think they have stopped.

        1. It would be fun to be a lawyer in your world.

          “Counsel, do you have any evidence to support your argument?”
          “Your Honor, it’s always been true. See right here where it says ‘legend has it’?”
          “I’m convinced! Plaintiffs win!”

    3. There’s precisely as much evidence of this as there’s evidence that the Trump vote was the result of massive secret cheating and Biden really won the electoral college 538-0.

    4. Trump got “just enough in just the right places” in 2016. Was ta election fraudulent?

      Your logic sucks. There will always be some states where the results are close, and barring a landslide the way those tilt will often be decisive.

      The notion that the Democrats organized a four state operation to steal just enough votes to put Biden over the top is a fantasy.

    5. “Random “irregularities” might not be distributed perfectly to put Biden over the top. It would take a massive coincidence that defies credibility.”

      Or the least-capable President in American history.

  6. Finally, a post about politics by an actual politics professor, instead of posts about politics by law professors.

  7. There isn’t an outcome yet for Trump to be in denial about. Maybe the outcome seems obvious at this point, but that’s not the same as having an outcome.

    It’s like a runner refusing to concede the race before somebody has hit the tape. It’s not denial to say that you haven’t lost yet, while everybody is still running.

    1. Every President in my memory has not bothered to wait for the EC to get back before starting the peaceful and smooth transition of power.

      This is like a runner refusing to concede because the cards says Moops.

      1. I agree that waiting for the EC vote would be overkill, though technically accurate.

        Waiting until the recounts and court challenges are complete, on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable.

        1. No, it is not reasonable. But America’s educated, accomplished, reasoning, better citizens residing in successful, modern communities have come to expect lousy conduct from the depleted human residue that still inhabits our can’t-keep-up rural and southern backwaters.

          We’ll handle this without you, clingers.

          Open wider, hayseeds.

  8. Didja say the same thing about Al Gore in 2000? He didn’t concede for a month.

    I’m not saying there isn’t a strong argument for Trump to stop challenging the results and concede ‘for the good of the nation,’ like Nixon did in 1960. But it’s been less than a week and there is at least one recount on the table.

    1. Recounts never shift the final tally more than a few hundred votes, and even then only in the biggest elections. The states where a recount is likely are Wisconsin and Georgia. Biden leads by 20,000 and 10,000 votes in those states, respectively.

      2000 came down to 500 votes in one state, with tens of thousands of ballots subject to a recount. Gore had a reasonable hope that a full recount would have swung his way. Once that was off the table he conceded.

      There is no reasonable hope for Trump at this point. It’s time for him to concede.

      1. Recounts do not shift the final tally more than a little because they’re generally intended to correct multiple, independent, mistakes. If there was systematic fraud or illegality going on, the potential shift can be much larger.

        But the usual remedy in such cases is holding the election over, because in such cases the faulty ballots are generally mixed in with the legal ones, with no way to determine what the outcome minus fraud would have been.

        I have a hard time envisioning the Supreme court ordering a redo even if fraud on a scale large enough to change the outcome could be proven.

        1. How would a recount uncover systematic fraud?

          1. When the new numbers don’t match the old numbers and the differences form a systemic pattern. Not a tough question.

            1. How would a fraud not be changing the new numbers as well as the old?
              All of the methods of fraud you ginned up are about submitted votes, which would turn up in the recount.

              1. Who knows? That’s why you go through the process: to see what answers you get.

          2. Well, for one thing there’s that software 30 states were utilizing, that seems to have had some serious glitches. If the fraud was at the level of reading ballots, not manufacturing them, a recount could detect it. But could also fix it.

            I’ll agree that ballot manufacture is pretty hard to detect with a recount, and once ballots are commingled, is virtually impossible to undo short of holding the election over.

            It would be pretty much unheard of for a Presidential election to be redone, which was my point. There are forms of fraud you can prove after the fact that admit no plausible remedy. It’s quite possible we could end up in a place where we know that fraud actually DID happen on a large enough scale to have changed the outcome, and the Court just throws up it’s hands.

            1. There is no evidence of a computer error.

              Grasping at straws.

              1. Trump lost. That’s all the evidence these people need to claim it wasn’t legitimate.

              2. Voting software used in MI county with skewed results also used in Mid-Michigan

                “LANSING, Mich– (WLNS) An entire Michigan county has flipped back to it’s historically republican roots after a manual recount of votes.

                Officials with Antrim County posted updated results showing President Trump won the county with 9,783 votes making up 56.46% of ballots cast. Joe Biden earned 7,289 votes or 42.07%. The county initially “went blue” and showed a win for Biden before the error was discovered.

                Antrim County officials have blamed the county’s election software saying totals counted did not match tabulator tapes. 6 News has learned the “Dominion Voting System” is used Antrim County.

                That system is also used in 64 other counties across the state including, Ingham, Jackson, and Shiawassee, locally.”

                And in 28 states.

                1. Yeah, that was a tabulation error that was quickly corrected. That’s the system working, Brett.

                  This is not pretty.

                  1. If there are other errors, let’s find them and get them corrected too.

                2. Brett,

                  I’m sure it was just an honest error, and that you didn’t DELIBERATELY omit the following paragraph from your quote:

                  “A spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, tells 6 News the skewed results were the result of a “county user error” not a software issue and there is no reason to believe similar errors with ballot counts happened anywhere else.”

                  You might recognize it as the paragraph immediately following where you decided to snip, because it shoots down your entire argument.

                  You can’t even quote people honestly without attempting to distort the facts to suit your purpose? The lack of integrity from you Trumpers is astonishing.

                  You’re not patriots. You’re liars with no sense of morality or ethics whatsoever.

        2. Recounts just stuff the same illegal ballots back through the counters.

          A recanvas uncovers the fraud.

    2. Gore was waiting for recounts before he conceded. There was no real fear that, if the recount was against him, he wouldn’t.

      Trump isn’t waiting for anything. Fact is, when all the lawsuits and recounts and so-on die-down, and he still lost, he still won’t concede. There is no reason to think he will ever concede. He will go to his grave claiming he won the electoral college and popular vote in 2020, just as he claims, to this day, that he’s the one who “really” won the popular vote in 2016.

      So no, they aren’t comparable.

      1. Actually, he didn’t concede after the first, automatic, recount. He didn’t concede after the partial recount in Palm Beach and Broward.

        He didn’t concede until the THIRD recount was terminated.

        1. And there were actual voting irregularities (hanging chads) that people were aware of and were at the center of much of the controversy. The entire election swung on a single state over that paper ballot malfunction not on 4 states across a wide variety of conspiracy laden claims that result in the GOP keeping the Senate and gaining seats in the House.

          And Gore did concede. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w2oaaHRo_A

          Your emphasis on “THIRD” makes it seem like that’s almost like not conceding at all, which is what Trump appears on track to do.

  9. The cheating-deniers are the ones in denial. And as the only uncorrupt politician since at least Jimmy Carter, Trump has a unique opportunity here to put away the lot of them, which may not come again and needs to be seized.

    It’s not a coincidence that he will be speaking today in Athens, TN, where Americans took up arms in 1946 to keep a crooked sheriff from stealing an election. (If you’re unfamiliar, search Youtube for “Battle of Athens”.) If he doesn’t win this fight, we may have to do it again.

    1. And as the only uncorrupt politician since at least Jimmy Carter, Trump

      THEY MADE HIM SELL HIS PEANUT FARM!!!

      1. I would be for forcing Trump to sell any peanut farms he owns.

        1. That would have been mean, robbing him of the only profitable business he owned.

          1. Trump would find a way to lose money on peanuts.
            (and the losses wouldn’t be peanuts either)

      2. THEY MADE HIM SELL HIS PEANUT FARM!!!

        No, he voluntarily put it into a so called “blind” trust. No law then or now requires a president to do so.

        1. Spoken like a true Trump cultist, who finds anthing not specifically illegal fair game, no matter how sleazy and inappropriate.

          From a 22Nov16 interview with the president-elect :

          “Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he faces no legal obligation to cut ties with his businesses, even as he described how winning the presidency has made his brand “hotter” and acknowledged advancing his business interests during a conversation with a British politician. “The law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest,” Trump said in an interview with New York Times editors and writers.”

          https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-the-president-cant-have-a-conflict-of-interest-231760

          1. “he faces no legal obligation to cut ties with his businesses”

            Totally accurate. The “blind trust” law exempts the President and VP. It probably has to under the Constitution.

  10. “President Donald Trump is still in denial about the outcome of the presidential election. That is, perhaps, an understandable human reaction to such a loss, but the presidency is an office that demands that the occupant be able to overcome some of their all-too-human emotions. Admittedly, Trump is not a run-of-the-mill president.”

    Translation: Unlike all previous presidents, Trump is not an emotionally mature adult.

    One problem we’ve had over the past four years is people dancing around this. Almost every time, when I read that Trump as president is “not typical”, “not bound by the usual rules”, “a norm-breaker”, etc., what they really should be saying is the truth, that he is “not an emotionally mature adult”.

    1. Republicans who didn’t want Trump to win upset he doesn’t immediately concede. How shocking!

      1. You’re paranoid.

        Republicans didn’t want Trump to win?

        Then why did they support him, donate to his campaign,appear at his rallies, vote for him, etc.? What percentage of Republicans voted for him?

        1. Trump finished behind other Republicans. Biden benefited from a crossover voting more than Trump did.

          1. So what?

            How many of his 70 million votes came from Republicans?

      2. No one cares if he concedes or not. But he does need to do his job and allow the transition team to do theirs.

    2. captcrisis : One problem we’ve had over the past four years is people dancing around this

      Well, Trump’s cultists at least. They act like doting parents of an out-of-control brat child. As the kid shrieks & tosses things about, mom and dad smile indulgently and say, “Isn’t he just adorable?”

      Meanwhile, everyone else in the room is grinding their teeth….

  11. Very easy to attribute the controversy to President Trump. The better course would be to recognize that where there are indications that voting irregularities have occurred then review of the process inures to the benefit of the nation, not to the individual office holder.

    1. Trump insisting there are irregularities over twitter is not the same as there actually being irregularities.

      1. And the networks calling a race isn’t the same thing as it being over.

        1. Pretty different incentives there regarding accuracy.
          Also, you can trace the networks’ sources and processes pretty easily and see the actual numbers line up.

      2. Trump insisting there are irregularities over twitter is not the same as there actually being irregularities.

        For these guys it is. Plus, Giuliani is saying so. What more could you want?

        1. It’s not true unless it’s found on a laptop hard drive with absolutely ZERO Russian intelligence fingerprints on it!

  12. the odds that any such irregularities were large enough and distributed in just the right states that, if corrected, Trump would be proven to be the legal winner of the election are essentially nil.

    The betting markets current value that “nil” at about 12 per cent.

    1. And yet bookies all over the world already paid out their bets related to the US presidential elections.

      1. If so, then those bets must have been bets about what the Associated Press would “project.” That event has already concluded and the question answered.

      2. “And yet bookies all over the world already paid out their bets related to the US presidential elections.”

        Boy is that not a great example. Some paid for Hillary in 2016, too.

        1. The bookies called the election! What more do you want before installing a Manchurian candidate?

          1. And here I thought this election was about getting rid of one.

            1. You think that because you are a low-information rube who got suckered by Russian disinformation fed to gullible Democrats and laundered by complicit media stooges. Those are the same people who have been hiding Hunter Biden’s laptop and the corroborating evidence that Hunter was selling Joe’s influence, while Joe was raking in money from the arrangement.

  13. The fact that so many homosexuals and “people of color” are screaming about how they can “breathe free again” and “not live in fear” says all you need to know about this portion of the “American people.”

    1. Meanwhile, millions are concerned the election has been stolen. No human interest piece of their “emotions.”

      1. People don’t write “human interest” articles about fairy tales and delusions.

      2. I think they ran that piece back in 2016.

    2. I’d take any of them as my neighbor over a bigoted POS who feels the need to put them in quotation marks in an effort to dehumanize them.

      “Aktenberg78”

      1. You people are SO full of crap. You only want this “diversity” when it’s in someone else’s backyard

        1. Says the bigot who is clearly indicating he doesn’t want diversity at all.

          “Aktenberg78”

  14. “It cannot reasonably be expected that the head of the GSA will act contrary to the will of the president”

    Yes, I do expect that. I expect the head of the GSA will follow the law and perform their duties in a professional and non-partisan manner. Biden won, that is clear to everyone who not blinded by partisanship, and by refusing to do their duties, the GSA head is violating the Presidential Transition Act. Trump got his transition formally started the day after the election when he was leading less then Biden is now.

    1. Big difference there. Hillary had conceded and there we no recount efforts ongoing.

      1. Yes, that is a big difference. The GSA was relying on an adult (Hillary). Here, it can’t rely on an adult.

        1. You are just mad Trump isn’t your usually big pussy GOP who is actually going to fight.

          1. Sure… fighting 75 Million voters which included a significant number of people in his own who party who made the crazy choice to check Biden and people like Lindsey Graham on the same ballot. That’s a bunch of voters who voted GOP downticket but couldn’t be bothered to see Trump in the Whitehouse for another four years.

            That’s gotta sting.

    2. “GSA head is violating the Presidential Transition Act”

      Oh dear. I guess she should be impeached and removed from office then.

      1. He was impeached and removed from office.

        1. Wasn’t talking about Trump

          BTW, losing an election [if true] isn’t “removed from office”.

          If the GSA head is acting illegally, start impeachment. She’ll be gone in January, better hurry.

  15. The Trump administration should distinguish itself from the Trump campaign.

    hahahahaha. No. Good one.

    Good article, but to even suggest the above is to deny 4+ years of evidence as to why this is simply impossible. You did see what happened with Jeff Sessions, right? Multiply that with dozens if not hundreds of other well documented incidents.

    Prediction: the GSA will have to be taken to court to treat Biden the same as any other president-elect.

  16. I assume that rigging elections has been fairly common in the U.S. as far back as Tammany Hall, or roughly as long as the U.S. has existed. We are even experts at rigging elections and similar maneuvers all around the world in foreign countries. There are many ways conceivably that elections can be rigged. Just as one example, today in the US, we have ballot harvesters who go around and collect ballots from the projects, nursing homes etc. In some cases there is likely cash paid. The ballots are more plentiful than ever thanks to the massive and sudden changes imposed on our system this year. Tammany hall was in your 8th grade history book and explains why voting should be in person with an ID.

    I don’t believe that Joe Biden legitimately had far more support and enthusiasm than Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012. And that this effect was fortuitously concentrated in swing states. I don’t believe it’s legitimate that the number of newly registered 90+ year olds in Pennsylvania is 10x more than ever before. I don’t believe it could be legitimate that Joe Biden’s advantage among mail in votes was 60% in PA and 38% in MI, while only being 1.3% in FL and 4.9% in MN.

    Personally, I think of it this way. I don’t have evidence proving that anyone on my street was breaking the speed limit today. I don’t have evidence proving that some people who live in my city cheated on their taxes this year. And I sure don’t have the extra time on my hands to go and find or evaluate such evidence. Yet I’m going to feel confident in making some assumptions, even while being open to persuasion in either direction.

    As to the main point of this post, I don’t think it’s time for Donald Trump to concede. At an absolute minimum, I think he should take 37 days like Al Gore did after the media (who does not decide elections) declared Al Gore to be the winner of the Presidential election in 2000. I’m not sure it’s important for him to concede at all. I’m somewhat ambivalent at this point on that question.

    1. This is an impressively evidence-free argument.

      Trump’s folks being more enthusiastic, well, that’s legit. But the other side?! Well, that’s clear evidence of fraud.

      It’s a shame to see your critical thinking skills crumble under your partisanship.

      1. Your critical thinking (and reading) skills remain dismal as always, I see.

      2. Evidence-free? There is no hard evidence, no. However, there are several very important points that are exceptionally curious. An 80%-20% split on mail-in ballots doesn’t make sense and isn’t consistent with other data. Also, nonagenarians don’t normally register to vote for the first time. Both of these would be very easily explained by good size nursing home fraud scheme. That form of fraud is easy to pull off and is normally difficult to detect.

        Enough to swing the election? I’ll doubt it. However, don’t you want an honest election, or do you only care when your candidate loses?

        1. 2020 isn’t consistent with any data. Two things came to the head this year and impacted the election: 1) Trump really turned off a lot of his own party members to the point where they spent money on TV ads supporting his Democratic opponent, 2) the coronavirus scared a lot of people (for good reasons) — especially the elderly. This has all be gone over before and you must know the arguments which is why I’m finding the whole “prior data” thing a little bizarre.

          It’s like expecting prior weather data to still be indicative after a major volcano eruption spews black ash over half a continent. In any normal year with any normal incumbent, this wouldn’t have been an issue (and the normal incumbent would have been very likely to win. Even George W won the popular vote in his second term). But this year we have Trump and Coronavirus and both of those motivated abnormal behaviors.

          1. Your weak attempted explanation doesn’t help explain various things, like a mail in vote margin of 60% in PA compared to 1.4% in FL both in 2020 with the latter state having more older folks. That data supposedly came from the NYT and I haven’t vetted it, but if it’s accurate, the explanation is probably a massive amount of fraud and other forms of rigging. The problem is I suspect it will be largely undetectable.

          2. “1) Trump really turned off a lot of his own party members to the point where they spent money on TV ads supporting his Democratic opponent,”

            The Lincoln project consists of few enough Republicans that they could probably all fit in the same telephone booth, if you could find one anymore.

    2. “I don’t believe that Joe Biden legitimately had far more support and enthusiasm than Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012.”

      I don’t believe that, either. But I find it plausible that a heck of a lot of people who didn’t care for Biden at all were enthusiastic about defeating Trump.

      1. For sure. Millions of people would have voted for a literal pile of horse manure to defeat Trump. But just being against the other candidate isn’t usually enough to win. At the end of the day, the vast majority of people are extremely nonpolitical, compared to the stuff everyone here spends time immersed in reading.

        1. It doesn’t seem like it should be that controversial that if Trump is super-motivating for people to vote from him that he might be equally motivating for people to vote against him.

          I agree that most of the time, people aren’t motivated enough to go vote against someone. Trump is not most people, though, as demonstrated by the overall levels of turnout nationwide (including places like Texas which turned out not to be close at all).

        2. ” But just being against the other candidate isn’t usually enough to win.”

          Usually the other candidate doesn’t face an almost unanimously hostile media. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a President face several years in a row of this uniformly hostile of coverage.

          Frankly, I’m in awe of his ability to come this close despite that.

          1. Where FOX News is part of the unanimity? Hardly. Highest watched news network on American television and strongly in favor of Trump to the point of fawning over him. When was the last time a network let a president call in and ramble over the television? Or have the president call one of your main talking heads every night to shoot the breeze and talk policy? That’s a pretty low bar for “hostile” in any book.

            Remember all the hostile conservative media covering Obama’s golfing trips? They trotted out old racist tropes about laziness and kept counts ready to splash up on the screen. Trump absolutely demolished Obama’s golfing totals in half the time but those same media outlets can’t be bothered to care. Or Birtherism… something Trump bears a great deal of blame for.

            Trump got this close to wining because he did a great job and convincing a lot of people that “up” was “down” in the same way cult leaders are able to do. He trashed prisoners of war and military veterans for crying out loud and people *still* thought he was great. He paid hookers for sex and bragged about kissing and touching women without their permission (who weren’t his wife even) and the evangelicals said to themselves “that’s a man of God!” He buddied up with enemies and trashed long-time allies. And those tweets… he couldn’t spend more than 15 minutes without saying something repulsive. The guy was hostile to more than half the country.

            Of course people were motivated to vote against him.

            1. “Highest watched news network on American television and strongly in favor of Trump to the point of fawning over him. ”

              Are you talking about the same FOX network I’ve seen maybe 3 consecutive minutes of in the last year, and still am aware that they were at best ambivalent about Trump 4 years ago, and have made a hard left turn since?

      2. Biden won a greater majority of the voting population than Reagan did in 1984.

        1. Proving what, exactly? Trump won a greater percentage of eligible voters than did Walter Mondale (who at least inspired a bit more enthusiasm than does Joe Biden). Neither fact matters much IMHO, the meme “Settle for Biden” was only partially humor…

      3. . . . and any concerns they had about voting for Biden were allayed by the necessity of defeating Trump.

        Clinton underperformed in 2016 because she was a terrible, unpopular candidate whose victory seemed inevitable. Thus a lot of progressives, anti-Clintonites, people who thought maybe the emails were kind of bad, etc. felt no need to vote for her. After all, it’s not like Trump is going to win!

        This contrast with 2020 which was all about beating Trump. And I can tell you as a Democrat in Pennsylvania that there was constant pressure via phone, text, email, social media, etc. to vote for Biden no matter what.

    3. I don’t believe that Joe Biden legitimately had far more support and enthusiasm than Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012.

      So if he wins by a lot that proves fraud, and if it’s close it must be fraud.

  17. Yeah, none of this will matter after 1/20/21 and we have to basically just hold our breaths for 70+ days (and watch the pardons flow).

    Luckily – for the entire country – Biden has eight years experience in the White House, so he won’t be going in like a rookie.

    1. This matters though – transitions are needed to keep initiatives going between administrations.

      1. Isn’t that what the civil service is for?

        1. No, you generally need a political to approve anything big.

          1. Sure, but there’s a difference between approving policy and developing it.

            1. Yeah, from what I’ve seen the issue is more on the implementation side than the development side.

              Though I have heard of some offices that switch to placeholder status-quo mode during transitions.

      2. A few weeks won’t make any difference at all, Sarcastr0. The Republic will endure a somewhat later transition start.

        1. 1) It’s not a threshold question, it’s an optimization question. The Republic won’t fall, it’ll just be unnecessarily a bit crappier.

          2) This ends up falling on civil servants, who will now have more of a crunch time come January. Apart from the misery, crunch means you miss things.

          3) This is pretty unprecedented in modern times, and there have been much much closer elections. The amount the GOP is willing to indulge these tantrums is sad.

  18. In order for a smooth transition to occur, maybe Trump should have the FBI spy on the Biden campaign, leak false accusations and innuendo to the press, make surprise visits to interview top officials even after it was recommended probes of those individuals be closed, and then prosecute them for lying even after the interviewers didn’t think they were lying.

    1. You are also just not a serious person. Steeped in debunked grievances, you’re going to be miserable about politics forever because your world of evil Democrats is not the real world.

      1. Yeah like the fake world where a fake dossier about Trump was released and the media treated it as the mega truth…

        1. Sarcastro is the simplest level of bot-like talking point repeater. All the response is just “That’s been debunked.” Oh, good to know.

          1. Have you considered the possibility that you’re an idiot spouting nonsense, and that if you bothered to put forth a serious argument, you might actually get a different response?

            When all you do is lie, you can’t complain that the only response you get is people pointing out that you’re a liar.

            Shocking.

            1. Considering . . . and rejected. First, I’m not lying. Second, I’ve had many exchanges with Sarcastro, so I already know. He’s not a bad person. The way he takes to the ShareBlue talking points with such heart is kinda cute.

      2. Deeebooooonked!!!

      3. “debunked grievances”

        Obama, in a meeting in the Oval Office with Biden in attendance, was briefed on the so called “counterintelligence” investigation and allowed it to continue. This is fact, not “debunked”.

      4. Everything ML posted is true and backed up be declassified govt documents.

  19. Trump is not in denial about anything.

    Let’s get down to brass tacks. The AP “called” the election on Saturday based upon its projections. The AP does not decide who wins.

    As Biden said, we must have patience and count all the votes. The left seems to have forgotten about that part of democracy after state run media “announced” our new president.

    Could Biden win? Sure. Is Biden President? No. Is he President-Elect? Not close.

    Let’s not also forget the championing the media has done in the last few election cycles for candidates on the left who called for recounts or contested elections. That was apparently their “patriotic” duty to make sure every sacred vote was properly counted.

    Here it is no different other then the media just doesn’t like Trump. Votes are still being counted and there are legal questions on some ballots that still need to be resolved. Many races are close and if there were illegal ballots counted it could sway the total.

    This is far from over despite what the state run media would like us to believe. Decency, fairness, and democracy call for calm and a full count of the vote. If it does go to Biden, then he will have four years to be President. Another few weeks to organize his cabinet isn’t going to make that much of a difference.

    1. In every election there are always little issues to be resolved and final tallies to formalize, but never since the Presidential Transition Act was passed as an outgoing administration refused to immediately provide the transition assistance.

    2. “Not even close.” True, he’s ahead of Trump by a lot more than Gore v Bush in 2000. He’s ahead by more than Hillary who beat Trump in the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. Trump still has a chance, but it’s tiny and dwindling by the day.

      Unlike his taxes, he really does have to provide the evidence this time. He can’t claim the election fraud evidence is being auditing by the IRS or whatever other “dog ate my homework” excuse he thinks up.

      Trumpists aren’t demanding every vote be counted. Rather, they’re demanding some legal votes be thrown out. They’re demanding this based largely on conspiracy theory with little actual evidence presented so far.

      Recounts should happen in any state where the law requires them due to slim margins and in any place where the Trump campaign can provide sufficient hard evidence that something improper actually took place. Conspiracy soup cooked up on 8kun is not “hard evidence.”

  20. It would be bad if the FBI started planning a way to entrap the incoming national security advisor, right? Or leaked information about how Biden was a Russian spy? Or discussed how to withhold information from the new guys? Those would be signs of a poor loser, I assume.

    1. Not really. The laws apply to everybody.

  21. It cannot reasonably be expected that the head of the GSA will act contrary to the will of the president

    Except, of course, to the extent that it is necessary to comply with laws passed by Congress. Speaking of which, could anyone point me to the relevant legal basis for all of this transition stuff?

    1. Is this the same GSA that :

      1. entered into a MoU with the Trump transition team confirming that the Trump transition teams records were the property of the Trump transition team and would be destroyed after the transition

      2. proactively, and without consulting the TTT, asked the FBI in Feb 2017 if they should retain TTT records in respect of Gen Flynn

      3. on being told informally “yes, please” – but without any legal force – retained ALL the TTT records, ie not just related to Flynn, contrary to the MoU

      4. did not tell the TTT, nor the White House, about their proactive FBI contact, nor their breach of the MoU

      5. continued to retain the records long past the transition – they did not receive a formal preservation request (note request, not order) till June

      6. once TTT learned that GSA had, contrary to the MoU, retained TTT records, and TTT asked for copies of the retained documents, GSA refused to provide them

      7. GSA delivered these records to Mueller, on the basis of a request, not a subpoena, search warrant or other legal compulsion; and without affording TTT the opportunity to review for relevance of privilege

      So, to cut a long story short, the will of the President does not seem to be a big thing at the GSA.

      1. This sounds like transparency in accordance to federal law to me.

        1. How am I not surprised ?

          Under what federal law do government agencies in possession of other people’s private data, and having entered into a memorandum of understanding to keep it confidential and then destroy it by a set time;

          (a) retain it past the set time
          (b) deliver it to law enforcement voluntarily and without the consent of the owner of the data
          (c) refuse to give it to the actual owner on request ?

          That must be some federal law. Which one ?

          1. Public records retention is in a bunch of laws. Feds need to do annual training on it.

            1. No doubt.

              Now do private records, which the MoU between the GSA and the TTT explicitly acknowledged them to be. And even if it hadn’t, the TTT is obviously a private organisation not a government organisation.

              1. IANAL… but is it really private? This might be a grey area given that the presidential transition team is conducting government business. Don’t they get access to information and resources no private organization has access to in order to meet their government-ascribed goal? There’s got to be a body of law that covers these kinds of arrangements but, at the very least, it isn’t obvious to me that they’re fully private.

                1. It’s not even slightly controversial. Sarcastro is just doing his usual gaslighting :

                  https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/memos/ac09-2017

              2. MOU doesn’t make public records private.

                TTT is obviously a private organisation not a government organisation.

                They had government e-mails and government office space.

                Something currently being denied to Biden’s folks.

                1. They had government e-mails and government office space.

                  Yeah, they rented them. See the MoU.

                  1. You’re wrong about the law, Lee. I’ve seen it implemented.

    2. It is called the Presidential Transition Act, and it was passed to avoid this type of obstruction.

      1. Thanks. Has anyone ever considered that regulating the executive branch strictly in terms of “may” statutes is not a great idea?

        The President of the United States, or the President’s delegate, may take such actions as the President determines necessary and appropriate to plan and coordinate activities by the Executive branch of the Federal Government to facilitate an efficient transfer of power to a successor President

  22. I think the costs of a delay in the transition are highly overstated and are really just a product of people looking for a BS talking point. Other countries transition in a week. Britain, in the middle of WW2, transitioned from Churchill to Atlee the next day, even pulling Churchill out of the Potsdam Conference and replacing him with Atlee. Our lame duck period is way, way too long to begin with.

    In any event, Clinton didn’t start handling the Bush transition until the recounts were over in early December 2000. It didn’t do any harm.

    1. Other countries don’t replace thousands of people at the top of the civil service every time there’s a new government. When Britain has an election, at most a hundred or so people get a new job. (Not counting the jobs in parliament, like chief whip etc.)

    2. Usually the outgoing administration is filled with professionals who know their jobs, know where to find everything, know their chain of command, and have been free to do their work without fat grubby fingers poking in from above. And who are willing in a professional manner to timely and unhesitatingly meet with the incomers and brief them competently and objectively. That’s not true here. This transition is going to be a very rough road and will take a lot of time.

    3. As a certified bureaucrat, I can tell you it’s a pretty big thing. Because we have so many political appointees that change-over in administrational transitions, and because so many things are required to be signed-off by politicals.

  23. Apres moi, le deluge!

    Professor Whittington has failed to articulate any rational basis for President Tump to make any sort of concession. His “reasons” consists of exactly the sort of group-focused morality whereby great winners have in the stand in the same queue as and small-time losers and wait their “turn”. Why should the great have to put up with such nonsense if they have the ability to muscle their way ahead.

    As the supreme court has repeatedly said, this country is founded on rights, the idea that people should fight for and claim what is theirs, not morality, the idea that people should defer to others’ ideas of what is right.

    The idea thst there is something wrong with conventional morality comes home to roost. If other notions of morality are mere superstitions that can be discarded when inconvenient,, why not this one? If the Supreme Court is entitled to think it’s a better judge of morality than everyone else, why shouldn’t President Trump be entitled to think he is too?

    Strict, me-and-my-rights-first, they’re-out-to-get-me libertariarianism breaks down when one holds an important office. In a civilized society, especially a democratic one, EVERYBODY holds an important office, and such a society can only survive and function when its members realize this and act accordingly. We are all of us aristocrats, all of us members of an elite. Every one of us is a prince, and ought to behave like one.

    The society that survives and thrives is not the society that mocks and succeeds in getting rid of elite or aristocratic values. It is the society that succeeds in inculcating these values into the general public

    Not recognizing this is libertarianism’s fundamental mistake.

    1. If other notions of morality are mere superstitions that can be discarded when inconvenient,, why not this one? If the Supreme Court is entitled to think it’s a better judge of morality than everyone else, why shouldn’t President Trump be entitled to think he is too?

      I didn’t take you for another nihilist.

      There is nothing aristocratic in training up your replacement to do your job well.

      1. One of the drawbacks of the internet is it’s hard to tell when someone is being serious and when sarcastic.

        I was satirizing Trump’s nihilism. I agree nihilism is the right word.

        President Trump feigned espousal conservative causes and gave conservative interests power for essentially nihilistic reasons, because it helped him gain him power, money, sex, etc. today, and tomorrow be damned. Faustian pacts have hidden consequences. I suspect this one will end up giving legitimate conservativism a blow it may never recover from.

        1. Ah. See I even knew your general deal and was taken in.

          Though your impression of some on this thread is uncanny.

  24. “Donald Trump has thus far continued to encourage divisiveness rather than reconciliation.”

    Several prominent Democrats are making a list of people that’ll need to go before the Truth Commission, presumably to be punished. That includes sitting Congresspersons and at least one former cabinet member. Does that encourage reconciliation?

    Trump is toast. But we’re starting already to see the media shifting over to it’s new role as spokespeople for the new regime.

    1. Ah, I see someone’s signed up to the Blackman school of reconciliation: letting criminals go free.

      1. Ah, I see someone has signed up at the Stalin School of Justice. Trying “criminals” in front of a political Truth Commission instead of in a courtroom. That way things like civil rights don’t get in the way.

        Rock on, comrade!!!

  25. If past performance is any indication future results, expect there to be a flurry of meritless suits, quickly dismissed or resolved in favor of the defendants.

    Why? Not because Trump has bad attorneys (although some of them are not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer), it’s because his attorneys have a terrible client. One who insists on them filing meritless claims. So, go ahead and waste everyone’s time. The rest of the world will move on.

    As for the claims of “massive voter fraud” all I can say is that if you had worn the aluminum foil around your ankles instead of on your head to protect you from the 5G rays, it might not have happened. Let that be a lesson for next time.

  26. Trump & Trump Supporters, before:

    “All elections are called the night of! That’s how it works. That’s how it’s always worked. Anything else is FRAUD!!111!!!”

    Trump & Trump Supporters, now:

    “Elections aren’t over until all legal challenges are done, and the Electoral College meets, and the current incumbent leaves the White House, and maybe not even then. You can’t call an election until Rudy Giuliani says that the election is fair!”

    The Trump Campaign has always been at war with Eurasia … um, Fraud.

    1. You seem mad that Trump supporters aren’t doing your shuck and jive like they have been told.

      1. Ha! Look, it’s Aktenberg76’s second best friend, Jimmy “Amos & Andy” Dane.

        I told you before I wasn’t responding to you substantively again, so go have fun in traffic!

        1. I hurt Loki’s feelings back making him uncomfortable in another thread when he realized dems treat the minority vote for granted and get mad when they don’t perform as commanded.

          1. Lots of dems do treat minority votes for granted, and that sucks. But ironically invoking racist tropes is still invoking racist tropes.

            1. So using a style of dance performed by a minority community to describe an action of that community is now a “racist trope”? That is pretty special. So when you say “waltz into a room” (which is a more common turn of phrase) I take it that is now racist if white people are performing the action?

              1. Shuck and jive is not like waltz into the room. You’re being unserious again.

                1. Sure it is. The reference is to a form of dance. That happens a lot in common parlance when referring to performance or movement. The only reason you thin it is something other than that is because that is your perception.

        2. In a past thread, Jimmy was annoyed that I thought it was weird that he liked to use “shuck and jive” to refer to minority outreach.

          So, like the smart guy he is, he is doubling down. It’s like when he was all clever with the whole, “I’m going to hire a rapper to say the “N” word for me” series of posts.

          Because when I think of clever observations about race, I think of Jimmy! He’s like like the Old, White Dave Chappelle.

          1. Sigh….in the rapper post you bring up (which was like six months ago), I pointed out the absurdity of the claim that certain words or language can only be used by certain groups (whites can’t say the n-word but black, sure go ahead no problem there.)

            All I said was that what anyone who needs to use the word should do is find themselves a politically correct rapper who uses the word in their lyrics to “stand-in” to fill in the word when necessary. All you have to do is give the cue and the politically correct party uses the word then you can keep on talking. Convenient way that both sides win. We get accuracy without having the censor.

            1. It’s really funny, isn’t it, that you manage to keep coming up with posts that let you justify your use of the “n” word, using phrases like “shucking and jiving” to refer to minority outreach, and all sorts of other bon mots!

              I mean, it kind of speaks for itself. It’s great that you keep coming up with justifications for it, post hoc, but you and Aktenberg are the same person when all is said and done. He is just more explicit.

              KTHXBYE!

              1. If by using the “w” word you mean actually saying “n word” then you are sadly mistaken as I do not use that word (despite the content filters on the comment section seem to permit it as others have used it.) Not once I have typed that word here. So no I don’t use it as an “excuse” to type some particular word.

                And I didn’t use the phrase “shuck and jive” to refer to minority outreach. I clearly used it to describe the PERFORMANCE that dems expect from minority voters. Many find the fact that left regards them as a monolithic voter set as offensive. And many within those communities use this as a (very good) argument on why minorities should NOT vote for the dems (including picking third parties.)

                1. “And many within those communities use this …”

                  So good of you to speak for the minority communities, Jimmy!

                  Hey, remember how you love to try the whole, “That make you the real racist,” except that everyone knows you are an old white guy?

                  That must be embarrassing! So now, instead f implying you’re not an old white guy, you just own it and speak for minority communities?

                  That’s mighty white of you!

                  1. Is this the best you got now? You claimed I use it as an excuse to say a particular word, which I pointed out that I obviously don’t. Woops got you on that one! So now you mumble some more incoherent thoughts.

                    Maybe you ought to the samba over to another comment thread.

                    1. You didn’t point out anything, Jimmy. Every knows exactly who you are. And incoherent? I’m not the one who (HA HA HA) tried to imply I was anything other than a sad, old white man … and then got called to the carpet on it.

                      You just keep on beclowning yourself.

                      You and Aktenberg. Like peas in a pod.

                    2. I’m actually feeling sort of sad for you. I hope you can get some help.

                    3. I feel sad for you, too.

                      But there’s no help for you.

                    4. Having unnecessary pent up anger like that is no healthy…

                    5. Having pent-up racism (which is always unnecessary and unhealthy) could kill you!

                      Or so we hope.

                    6. Again, you make baseless accusation. We don’t live in A Clockwork Orange where if you say something so many times it makes it true.

                    7. Of course it’s true, you racist old coot!

                      Everyone knows it. You might think you’re clever (or, as Sarcastro puts it, “unserious”), but you are just racist AF.

  27. This reminds me of the tactic the left used by in November 2016 that Trump should not get national security information because he had “been hacked by the Russians.”

    1. Trump got daily national security briefs as part of his onboarding just like usual, chief.

      1. But that doesn’t FEEL true. So does it really matter?

      2. Yes he did but there was a huge push by the left to deny him those briefings. Also remember Hamilton Electors and the 25th Amendment? Expect Biden to get the same treatment here (except I do wonder if they will actually have to pull the 25th Amendment when the dementia starts becoming too much to hide.)

        1. Jimmy, you are equating some twitter big brain’s hot take with actual actions by the President of the United States.

          1. Twitter = large representative sample of the left

            1. actions by the President of the United States.

      3. Well, except for warning him that they thought some of the people working for him might be compromised. You’d think they’d have mentioned that if they really were doing the spying for national security reasons.

        1. Obama warned Trump against hiring Flynn.

  28. I adjusted the post (including the chart) to correct and clarify a point about the vote gap and how many states need to flip to get to a Trump victory.

    But it’s still wrong. You need to subtract 2 from each of the numbers in the right hand column.

    1. This is because Biden has a 74 EV lead (if all falls as expected) not a 76 EV lead. Biden leads 306 – 232, which is exactly the same as Trump’s lead over Hillary, before all those unfaithful electors.

    2. The bias here is indicated in the language being passively used. Note the use of “flip” instead of “win”. One does not “flip” a state during a recount. They win it outright and would have won it the first time if the votes were counted correctly. It is this type of burden-shifting that the media is pushing hard by naming Biden so-called “president-elect” on Saturday. They want The Narrative to be “Trump lost and is a sore loser, recounts won’t change anything anyhow…”

      The only loser here is the American People. The “get Trump” crowd will sacrifice the core pillar of democracy, which is the vote, in order to get their guy in under any circumstance. Like Biden said, we need patience here and make sure every vote is counted and that the counted vote was done lawfully.

  29. So Keith,

    This response is entirely unsurprising, and honestly was anticipated since before the election. Both sides massively scaled up their lawyer operations. But here are the reasons this was anticipated.

    1. The very unusual nature of this election. With COVID and a massive, unprecedented rise in mail in/drop off ballots, and multiple states doing the initial counting long after election day, this election simply wasn’t like previous elections.

    2. The multiple, late changes to election law by judge and/or electoral committee that in many instances went directly against the written election law. Bound to produce disputes.

    3. The previous examples of loose voting conditions and voting fraud during the 2020 primaries under these conditions.

    Then add on reports of poll watchers being evicted, “6000 vote glitches” in vote software, and more during the actual counting and it’s not surprising at all that Trump wants further investigation before conceding.

    1. “and multiple states doing the initial counting long after election day, this election simply wasn’t like previous elections.”

      While I disagree with the rest of your post, this is unadultered poppycock.

      This is how elections always are. There are three factors that matter when it comes to counting votes and timelienss:

      1. Resources (how many people are counting, and when they can start the count).

      2. Difficulty (if there are different requirements for certain ballots, such as provisional, these will take more time).

      3. Number (how many ballots need to be counted).

      Every single election takes a while to count (especially when it comes to certifying the count). The main different is that is usually doesn’t matter. People accept “projected” votes easily. You don’t care about the states that are still counting, and you don’t care about the overseas, military, provisional ballots, and so on because they don’t matter to the overall tally in most states.

      Because this was close, and because they wanted to wait to get any projections right, it felt like it took longer. In addition, there were a few peculiarities (such as PA not allowing mail-in ballots to be counted early, as they do in Florida, which is why Florida reported so quickly).

      But this was not some sea change of difference.

      1. Every previous modern presidential election has had the vast majority of the initial vote count (>95%) done by the next morning. Typically by 2 AM.

        This election did not, with several states having large chunks of the vote (>5%) outstanding for multiple days afterwards.

        This is the initial, reported count. Not the certified numbers (which are different, and need to be certified by the legislature.

        1. “Every previous modern presidential election has had the vast majority of the initial vote count (>95%) done by the next morning. Typically by 2 AM.”

          Source? That is just not true. You are completely making this up.

        2. “This election did not, with several states having large chunks of the vote (>5%) outstanding for multiple days afterwards.”

          And just so this is clear, this conversation was had on these threads the day after the election, and I pointed out that many states that people did not care about (such as California) were still reporting ~50%, as they often do. The reason no one pays attention to these results is because they were already “called,” and no cares.

          You usually get the bulk of the votes in the night of the election (but not 95%), the next majority in the day or two following, and the stragglers (states with absentee/postmark exceptions, military, overseas, provisional, etc.) in the following week-two weeks.

          1. It seems some people are fine with disenfranchising voters who have not yet had their ballots counted. There is a big difference when you have CA and 100,000’s of ballots in either direction. It is another when the vote tally is less than 0.5% and could go either way, especially since the polls (on which those projection models are based) were so inaccurate.

            1. Everything you just said is, as usual, completely wrong.

              1. No one is “fine” with disenfranchising voters, you racist idiot. I was responding to a specific claim that was incorrect about vote tallies.

              2. The reason it took so much longer to call certain states is because they weren’t using projections until the very end.

              3. Projections models are not based on “polls” but are based on a combination of factors, depending on the source. To start with, the organization will have a number of people that will be combing through the county-level results, breaking it down by the type of ballot (early, mail, in-person, etc.). For close races, the history of the county where the votes are being counted, and the breakdown of the votes remaining (especially if the partisan identification of those votes is known) plays into this. This is why especially close races take longer to “call.”

              4. Finally, DIAF and stop responding to my comments, you racist Old EFF You See Kay.

              1. Why are you calling people names without justification?

                1. Why are you racist AF?

            2. That happens in literally every election. If, for example, there’s a 200K vote margin and 50K provisional ballots, the election authorities generally don’t bother to validate and count the provisional ballots because they’re not relevant to the outcome. That’s not some new thing for this election, that’s just people with finite resources being pragmatic.

              But sure, if the votes are material to the decision, they’re going to get counted. That doesn’t mean that we can’t be pretty confident about what the result is going to be regardless (e.g., if the vote margin were 25K and there were 26K provisional ballots, we’d still need to validate and count them because they could theoretically shift the election if they were all valid and all for one candidate, but you could probably plan with 99.5+% confidence that the result was not going to change as a result).

              1. And the push by people here who want to call Biden “president” is effectively making the argument we don’t need to count those votes, because of, well, some reasons they are typing up and we should take them as legit. Because of well some more reasons. And oh yeah if you don’t like those reasons you are racist…or something….

                1. If they won’t change the decision, why are you still counting? I don’t know if they are all counted or not, but seems like a waste of time to me.

                2. The push to acknowledge the 99.99% outcome of the election is the same as in every election where the results are not completely determinative is that we want to stop having a dumb discussion about a minute possibility and try to keep the country functioning normally through the transition of power.

                  Now, if it turns out that the .001% probability comes through and Trump actually won, the principal downside to having begun the transition process now is that we’ve wasted ~$10M in staffing and some amount of attention from various agencies. But no one is saying that the electors should change their vote to election-week projections or that states shouldn’t finishing counting and certify their votes. All that will happen anyway and if Trump won, he won. Similarly, maybe I’m going to win the lottery next week and be super rich, but I don’t plan my life as if that’s the expected outcome.

        3. “Every previous modern presidential election has had the vast majority of the initial vote count (>95%) done by the next morning. Typically by 2 AM.”

          That is definitely wrong. A number of states have been doing universal vote by mail for several Presidential cycles and none of them get anywhere near 95% counted on election night.

          Alaska has only counted ~50% of their ballots so far this year, but in 2012 ~20% of their votes can in as provisional or by mail, none of which they even attempt to count until a full week after the election.

          Just because the outcome of an election is usually fairly obvious on election night does not mean that it’s because the vast majority of ballots have been counted by that point.

          1. “That is definitely wrong. A number of states have been doing universal vote by mail for several Presidential cycles and none of them get anywhere near 95% counted on election night.”

            Really? Consider Oregon.

            They upload every ballot and vote received before election day before the “polls” even close on election day. Meaning they only have to process the ballots that actually arrive on election day. They’re even faster than traditional means, in many respects, making it easy for them to process >95% of the vote by the next morning.

            https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/02/oregons-vote-mail-process-could-mean-fast-election-night-results/6099249002/

            1. “Really? Consider Oregon.”

              Really. I agree that Oregon is a good example of how you can conduct a vote-by-mail count, but they allow ballot curing up to 14 days after election day. They’re still only at 97% of votes counted a week after the election.

              Regardless of how good Oregon is, California is quite slow and has many more voters. California is so big and so slow that even if every other state got to 100% on election night, you’d still have a hard time getting to 95% nationally. Other places are equally, slow, though: Utah (more Oregon-sized) typically takes well over a week to get through it’s counting and still isn’t at 95% counted.

              In any case, if your point is that more states should behave like Oregon when it comes to counting mail-in ballots, I totally agree! The fact that the legislatures in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania refuse to allow any pre-processing of mail-in ballots prior to election day only serves to add to uncertainty in elections and it would be good to take common sense steps to speed up the process in the future. Florida did this after the 2000 election; hopefully other states will follow their lead and get their act together between now and 2024.

  30. So, voter fraud truthers, what are you going to do come January if the courts have availed nothing, any investigation more serious than Project Veritas has turned up bupkis, and Trump unceremoniously becomes a trespasser in the White House?

    When all your straws have been grasped and you at last are left with the stark reality that it sure looks like your guy didn’t win (as sometimes happens in a Republic!), what then?

    1. Maybe we will just take a few plays out of the “Orange Man Bad” playbook. Gin up some fake investigations, talk of invoking the 25th Amendment, make up some claims of foreign involvement, and then impeach the guy. All to delegitimize him for four years. I’m sure this will all be good for The Republic, but as you say it happens from time to time.

      The question is what are you going to do when it is your guy who is the target of all this fun?

      1. Empty revenge is really all I expected from you.

        I try not to base my choice of policies on my own no-doubt distorted view of the other sides’ actions.

        Like, I think you lot are super bad and often crazy, and the GOP party is not a lot different. But I’m not going to sabotage this country to spite you. Part of being a good American is having the humility to live in a Republic and acknowledge that I might be wrong about the best course for the country.

        As I said when Trump got elected, the thing about a democracy is that we get the government we deserve. Trying to make it worse than even that is quite a move for a country I expect you claim to love.

        1. His proposed actions would not “make it worse”, they would “keep the new status quo”. It’s too bad that the side that slandered a president over a work of fiction and impeached him for asking a foreign country to investigate corruption — which has now been very solidly documented — is now upset about norms being violated. I guess that just shows they never loved the country as much as they claimed.

          1. It’s almost like Trump never went after Obama for his birth certificate or Judicial Watch made loud hay over Obama’s golfing or family vacations.

            New status quo? Grrrl please.

            1. Neither of those came close to using the national security apparatus to spy on an opponent’s campaign, impeaching a president in order to help cover up corruption within your party, or lining up the bulk of the media to trumpet lies about the sitting president.

              1. Even taking all that nonsense as true, you’re taking out your anger on the the American People having a functional government.

    2. Sarcastr0….What then? Nothing at all.

      There won’t be riots. There won’t be violence and mayhem. You won’t see Trump supporters losing their minds and breaking shit, and generally making asses out of themselves. I would imagine the focus will turn toward the January runoff elections, and 2022 midterm election. Seems easy enough.

      1. Yeah, but you’re not a truther.

        Trump supporters tend to do more gunplay than property damage. I hope they keep their powder dry.

      2. Y’all have been banging the “Civil War Part 2” drum for twelve years, and after you an election you insist was stolen, you’re going to do nothing?

        Jesus, no wonder y’all are a bunch of losers. You have no strength of conviction.

    3. “rump unceremoniously becomes a trespasser in the White House?”

      Don’t be dumb.

      He won’t even be in DC on January 21.

      1. I concur. But it seems many on here do not.

    4. You’ve already admitted there’s evidence of Fraud Sarcastro, so your hypothetical is null.

      1. An affidavit is evidence. And affidavit can also not be credible, and even if somehow verified does not rise to the point of whatever nonsense do-over Trump and you are dreaming of.

        Biden won decisively and clearly. This is becoming a fantastic crucible for who is really nuts around here.

        I’m going to be interested in what Blackman had to say.

  31. 109421 mail-in ballots were received in PA before they were mailed out.

    nO eViDenCe

    1. That is right Sam. NO EVIDENCE. Is what the media was saying even before the election. This is all just a conspiracy theory. Stupid Trumpists can’t lose an election. All that Russia stuff, now that was real. Voter fraud. NEVER HAPPENED!!!!

      Wisconsin officials “completing” ballots…never happened!
      Dead people voting…never happened!
      Postal service back dating postmarks to make mail in ballots legal…never happened!

      None of this ever happened. In fact everyone is so certain it never happened it isn’t even worth investigating.

    2. What’s that supposed to be evidence of? Really inept time travelers?

      I agree it’s evidence of SOMETHING, probably clerical error, but struggling a bit to get to your same AHA! moment that leads you to believe it’s somehow good for Trump’s election prospects.

      1. It could also be evidence of a bunch of partisans filling out some of those classic “Joe Biden only” mail-in ballots and turning them in.

        1. Ah yes, the local partisans so sophisticated they can get 100K ballots that they can undetectably generate, fill out and return without a single voter requesting and returning a conflicting ballot, but yet so stupid that they forget to tell the computer to issue the ballot in the first place until several days after the fact.

          Just as likely: it’s a bunch of murderers trying to create alibis for where they were on a certain day. At least my theory has something to do with why the ballots would be backdated.

          1. There were 60,000 provisional ballots in Clark County alone this year. Last election there were 5000.

            A provisional ballot is cast when someone shows up in person and the records show they had already cast a ballot.

            HTH

            1. “A provisional ballot is cast when someone shows up in person and the records show they had already cast a ballot.”

              You should do some basic due diligence before passing on your Breitbart “evidence” to avoid looking like an idiot. In 2019, the Nevada legislature changed the law so that provisional ballots are used for same-day voter registrations and same-day changes to registration. So that’s why there’s a lot more of them.

              If you were going to try to commit voter fraud, doing it with provisional ballots would be the DUMBEST WAY POSSIBLE. All of those ballots have all of the voter’s information get manually verified and can be re-verified in a recount, unlike normal ballots that there’s no way to re-associate with an individual voter record after the fact.

              As for the rest of your claims, the Michigan “dead voter” thing has been debunked by about a dozen different sources, and the Joe Frazier thing was in 2018, not this election.

              1. They didn’t commit fraud with provisional ballots, they committed fraud with the mail-in ballots and didn’t count on the people to show up in person.

                >As for the rest of your claims, the Michigan “dead voter” thing has been debunked by about a dozen different sources,

                No it hasn’t. Some reporter took a DIFFERENT list then claimed it was some clerical error.

                1. “They didn’t commit fraud with provisional ballots, they committed fraud with the mail-in ballots and didn’t count on the people to show up in person.”

                  So surely at least one of those 60K voters has come out to say that they showed up and the election workers told them that someone had already voted for them, right?

                  Or maybe it’s just that this year they started allowing same-day registration on provisional ballots. Which, you know, would actually make sense.

          2. There have been 10,000 absentee ballots requested and returned from verified dead people in MI.

            Joe Frazier, dead for several years, cast a ballot in PA this year.

            1. And there’s a child sex ring being run by cannibalistic Democrats under a pizza parlor.

  32. Oh noes, the GSA won’t sign a paper. End of the Republic!!!!!!

    I think Trump is handling the transition fine, getting some golf in with the good weather.

    1. No one here is getting apocalyptic.

      It’s crappy and unnecessary.

      1. “unnecessary”

        Probably true. After the way your side treated him, I think it is totally fine though.

        The transition should consist of leaving the keys in each office.

        1. You’re screwing America to feed your spite.

          That’s not how Obama rolled, or any modern President who wasn’t assassinated.

          Don’t pretend this is warranted. You’re just defending a smaller man than ever before.

          1. Did Al Gore get his transition team funded while he was challenging FL?

            1. LOL if you think this is anything like Bush v. Gore.

              1. Your ignorant, snarky dismissals are not an argument.

                1. Because your arguments are too dumb to be made in good faith. You’re pretty dumb, but not innumerate.

                  Loki explains pretty well.
                  https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/09/a-phased-transition-to-inauguration/#comment-8574143

                  1. Loki skips right over one of the biggest legal claims in PA.

                    You’re too stupid ignorant to even realize that.

          2. “Don’t pretend this is warranted. ”

            Its totally justified.

            Your side launched an organized effort to seduce electoral votes away, rioted at the inaguration, organized a massive protest rally the week he was sworn in [before he could do anything] and acted like fools for four years. Called him a traitor, spied on his campaign, etc. ad nausem.

            I could not careless if some staffers don’t get transition briefings.

            1. Revenge is not a justification, you bitter said husk of a man.

  33. One thing which is often missed in these discussions is that mistakes and incompetence can do as much damages as purposeful conduct. “I didn’t do it on purpose” is a nice excuse when you are in elementary school, but in real life, often the worst problems are created by accident.

    In that vein:

    Republican In Michigan Goes From Loser To Winner After ‘Technical Glitch’ Fixed. Officials Urge ‘Confidence’ In System.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/republican-in-michigan-goes-from-loser-to-winner-after-technical-glitch-fixed-officials-urge-confidence-in-system

    If you read the article, a computer glitch caused some votes to be tallied twice. And when it was fixed, a close local election went they other way.

    Now I repeat, the chance of any of this actually making Trump the winner is miniscule. But it is important to shine a light on it. A corrollary of “every vote counts” is “every vote must be counted accurately.”

    It would be a supreme irony if Trump’s efforts failed to make him president, but cause a change in some lower level elections. For example, in the Senate race in Michigan, a white Democrat beat a black Republican by 0.5% of the vote, or a bit less than 85,000 votes. It’s a long shot, but that conceivably could change with close scrutiny and a recount.

    Which would be a great service to the nation by Trump, even as he loses. The level of irony in that would be truly remarkable

    1. “One thing which is often missed in these discussions is that mistakes and incompetence can do as much damages as purposeful conduct. “I didn’t do it on purpose” is a nice excuse when you are in elementary school, but in real life, often the worst problems are created by accident.”

      Ugh. No.

      Here’s the issue. If you’ve had experience working with elections officials, you know that it is a thankless job that people do in good faith, and that the good work that they do is either taken for granted … or, more often than not, results in them being screamed at for no good reason. Kind of like being a referee in youth sports. Sometimes there are small issues caused by mistakes.

      This is very different than fraud. We have heard a constant drumbeat of “fraud” claims that have little-to-no backing in reality, and are co-mingled with errors. The thing is, errors are almost always caught; look at this one that you reported. This was not an error in counting votes, but only in reporting them. And it did not take a lawsuit, or cries of fraud, for it to be rectified; just the normal operation of county. And it was reacted to graciously by the candidates.

      If you keep attacking the faith people have in the elections system (as the GOP is doing) with unfounded and baseless claims, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      1. Your whole post is about how the officials act in good faith and do not commit fraud.

        Which was my very point. Good faith errors can and do happen.

        And we cannot simply assume the system worked properly for any election, and certainly not an extremely close election like this one was.

        1. Well, that’s how the system does work. The example you just gave is the system working.

          It’s not FRAUD!!111!! It’s not what many of the people here, and Giuliani, are claiming.

          Conflating the system working with paranoid and unfounded accusations of fraud is not helpful.

          1. You remind me of a scene from Blazing Saddles, where Gene Wilder plays a Polish rabbi on his way to San Francisco. He is downhearted because of something he did on the way west, so he and his friend, played by Harrison Ford, are sitting in a bar. Gene’s character says, “I don’t feel like a rabbi.” So Ford shouts, “YOU ARE A RABBI,” and the whole bar stares at him.

            Shouting “It’s Not Fraud” when the whole point of my post is that it does not have to be fraud, is either tragic or comic. Take your pick.

            And here is a hint: I am not “many people here” nor am I Rudy Giuliani.

            1. But look at the conclusions you are drawing.

              You end with the Senate Race in Michigan. That was 85,000 votes. At this point, there is no real chance of a reporting error. So … recount? Again, the margin is too great for any kind of automatic reocunt. Generally, recounts provide for a ~200 vote difference.

              We are talking orders of magnitude. That doesn’t happen. It’s a conflation of different things.

              You use the example of a local reporting error (which are quickly corrected).
              Then moving to what I assume is the idea of a recount (which would look into other error, but generally provides for ~200 vote correction).
              And then asserting it would be sufficient for an 85,000 vote margin- which doesn’t happen.

              1. Try reading again. I am not drawing any conclusions. I am calling for a thorough review of what happened.

                And the Michigan Senate race I stated was a long-shot to be changed.

                The election system we have in this country is a mess. That the result here is very unlikely to change does not mean it is not a mess. I want the spotlight shined on it, hard, so we can talk about fixing things.

                We live in a country where the most advanced technology is used to let you withdraw $20 from an ATM or to verify a $20 purchase on Amazon, but where the election system is often antiquated and disorganized. That should change, although partisans on both sides don’t want it to.

                1. “That should change, although partisans on both sides don’t want it to.”

                  After the 2000 debacle, Florida made multiple changes so that we would not see a repeat. No more punch-card ballots (“hanging chads”). Machines that can handle multiple recounts at once with the paper ballots in each county. No-excuse mail voting. Early voting with extended times.

                  …and election officials can start processing votes as they come in.

                  It shows how common-sense changes (and these are in a state that has had its share of partisan issues) can make for a smooth election.

                  But to answer your question- the decentralized nature of the election system is required, because of the varying state and local elections. Sure, it can sometimes be a mess, but it also means there is not a single point of failure/hacking.

            2. “Blazing Saddles,”

              Wrong movie

              The Frisco Kid

    2. It actually wasn’t a “computer glitch.” It was user error. The computer program worked fine. At least in the instance of Oakland County. Assuming it’s true, one wouldn’t need to worry about repeated “glitches” across Michigan’s system, though user error could still happen. It appears their own system of checks and balances caught the error as it was designed to do.

      “UPDATE: The office of Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson later released a statement. It said human error led to thousands of votes in Bay County not getting counted on election night.”
      abc12.com

  34. Clinton spent 4 years calling Trump illegitimate.
    So you don’t think I’m cherry picking quotes…
    https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+trump+illegitimate

    Gore didn’t concede until December 13, 2000.

    So, I think this post meets the definition of concern trolling.
    “the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion.”

    1. “Clinton spent 4 years calling Trump illegitimate.”

      Pretty sure you misheard. Clinton was saying he was illiterate.

      Have you seen some of those tweets? Can’t say I disagree.

    2. “Clinton spent 4 years calling Trump illegitimate.”

      Despite the fact she may have thought Trump was an illegitimate President, she managed to concede and allow the country to move on in the transition of power.

      1. I’m sure President Trump will to if he exhausts and loses his legal challenges.

        Why do you insist on denying him his lawful rights?

        1. The answer will be a long “blah blah blah…Orange Man Bad.”

        2. Mixing up legal and legitimate again, Sam.

          1. No I’m not.

            1. Dragging you into court for a nuisance suit in an attempt to bankrupt you is my legal right. It’s also illegitimate.

              Trump is throwing a tantrum, and you’re dumb enough to be right along with him.

              1. You’ve never heard of SLAAP protections?

                lmao wtf dude, read a dman book

                1. …Do you know what a SLAAP protects against?

                  1. “Dragging you into court for a nuisance suit in an attempt to bankrupt you is my legal right.”

                    ^^^^^^^^

                    1. SLAAP is too narrow for my hypo. I didn’t mention speech.

                    2. Please, that’s SLAPP not SLAAP.
                      And on a legal blog too…

  35. For those who don’t want to read the 200+ comments above let me sum them up:

    1. There is no reason to count the rest of the vote because the media has said Biden won.
    2. Anyone who suggests that there are election variances which may be fraud is a lying conspiracy theorist.
    3. Trump is a sore loser who ought to leave the White House immediately.
    4. Trump is bad.

    1. I’ll add 5. There is no point to recount because according to the people who want Biden to win there is no chance for any other result so we are just wasting our time.

    2. I agree with your summary, but not the order. It should be:

      1. #orangemanbad
      2. Trump is a sore loser who ought to leave immediately.
      3. There’s nothing to see … the media has spoken.
      4. Anyone who disagrees with the media is a conspiracy theorist who should be lampooned, defamed, and censored.

      Where have all the classic liberals gone?

  36. Why Trump Can’t Win, in Parts:

    1. Independent Votes. Unlike 2000, where you had one state and two different issues (the first popular vote winner/EC loser in a century, and a single state-margin of under 600 votes, or .01%), you have multiple states that would have to have been tallied incorrectly, all of which have different voting systems and governments, and some of them GOP-controlled.

    2. Margins. Again, unlike 2000, this isn’t a margin of under 600 votes in one of the most populous states in the Union; it is margins of 10,000 (Georgia) or more in multiple states. Given that recounts do not change that many votes, changing any single state is unlikely. Changing more than one state (as would be necessary) is technically improbable, but really impossible.

    3. Legal theories. Despite the sheer number of improbable claims being slung around, most of them do not have to do with the actual vote count. Whether poll monitors are 6′ or 20′ (for example) is the type of process issue that doesn’t change the number of votes. Even the PA case before the Supreme Court (regarding votes received after election date) does not change the result, just the margin. Unlike the Bush/Gore litigation about the counting of votes (and whether it should proceed in certain counties or statewide, and under what standards), there isn’t really litigation that will effect the outcome of the election.

    4. What we’ve seen so far. The litigation to date has been … embarrassing. Perhaps the best/worst moment is when one of the Trump Campaign lawyers, when questioned by a judge, actually used the phrase, “non-zero” number of poll watchers. The mismatch between the rhetoric used in announcing these lawsuits, and what gets filed, is why we keep seeing these lawsuits get dismissed.

  37. Here is an election worker on video (he posted to his snapchat) ripping up a Trump ballot.

    https://twitter.com/Kyudo_hankyu/status/1325869509140344837

    n0 eViDenCE

    1. I don’t think the Biden crowd understand that it isn’t so much about Trump maybe winning, but ensuring the integrity of our elections which is the only thing that sets us apart from a banana republic. I’m starting to read there are lots of double votes in Nevada too and plenty of illegal ballots in PA. I’m sure more is going to come out as people can finally start sorting through the databases.

    2. The worker, who remained unnamed, was falsely accused of tossing out a ballot. But Barron said video of the incident showed the worker was using a machine to separate the outer envelope from the inner envelope and that the ballot itself was not affected.

      Lame as hell.

      1. You can literally see him rip up a ballot. And he isn’t even by a machine.

        What a dirtbag liar you are. You clearly didn’t watch this video, that quote obviously doesn’t apply to this video you gaslighting Nazi.

        1. Oh, dear. I thought you had posted something legitimate when I searched for what you described.

          I clicked on it now that work’s done…and…that’s….you think that’s real…Jesus, Sam, you’re dumb as hell. Think for a moment. Just a moment!

          Nazi? You’re just getting crazier.

          1. Now you’re claiming the video is fake?

            Present your evidence, Gaslightro. First you didn’t even watch it, now you’re a video expert debooooonking it.

            1. Not a video expert, just not a moron.

              ‘Hi, I’m going to do a voter fraud now.’

              Sam: ‘Zounds. Got the mastermind!’

              1. So you can reason it’s fake because in your mind no no BLM/Biden voter would ever record themselves committing a felony.

                I don’t think you’re very bright.

                1. @Sam, Sarcastr0 is just egging you on.

                  The video seems pretty clear … at the very least, it deserves a visit by whoever it is that investigates felonies these days.

                  1. No, I’m not.

                    When you evidence is a single person saying ‘I’m going to do the crime now, everybody watch!’

                    Maybe a bit too on the nose. Maybe you should check it’s legit before you start going off, eh?

                    1. There are countless videos on social media of BLM/Biden voters committing crimes. From throwing bricks at unsuspecting white people, to pillaging and looting.

                    2. And sometimes there are movies that come out that show people with superpowers too.

                  2. I have a feeling like this is going to be low on the priority list of the local Soros funded DA who needs said money for his re-election coffers.

  38. https://twitter.com/MattBraynard/status/1325920583859785735

    lmao they’re calling people who were on the COA list to verify their votes. Many are saying they didn’t cast a ballot but somehow have a vote recorded for them in GA/PA.

    The lying, cheating democrats dun goofed this time.

    1. “The lying, cheating democrats dun goofed this time.”

      By outnumbering the lying, cheating Republicans?

      How does your conspiracy theory account for the fact that the Senate remains in Republican hands, barring a surprising result from the run-offs yet to be held?

  39. Of course, Al Gore didn’t concede the 2000 election until mid-December, but he was a Democrat.

    1. We all know there are two sets of rules. Remember when the media declared The Resistance started the night Trump got elected in 2016 then spent the next four years pumping fake news and fake news about him? Did they think we were all just going to “forget” when the tables turned….

      1. ” Remember when the media declared The Resistance started the night Trump got elected in 2016 then spent the next four years pumping fake news and fake news about him?”

        No, I don’t remember stuff you made up. Remember when Donald Trump got more votes than any other candidate? No, I don’t remember that, either.

    2. Gore lost the presidency by 537 votes in Florida. Not 4 states. Not millions of votes.

      If Trump wants to spend his money fighting his loss, that’s his right. But this is way outside of any prior situation and it looks like a tantrum.

      I hear the gullibles are already lining up to mail him cash. I’m sure he’ll totally not misuse that.

      1. “If Trump wants to spend his money fighting his loss, that’s his right. ”

        And if people of at least normal intelligence want to mock him for it, that is similarly entirely their right.

        Poor Donald. He’s going to be evicted from publicly-owned housing, and that stays on your credit report for years. It might affect his ability to borrow money from a bank.

    3. Of course, Al Gore didn’t concede the 2000 election until mid-December, but he was a Democrat.

      Of course, he was trying to get Republicans to actually count all the votes before declaring a winner, and that takes time (if it can be done.)

  40. Given the number of states Trump has to flip and the margins, it is highly unlikely Trump prevails. Given that reality I can think of only two reasons for Trump not to concede right now: 1) the base needs to be mollified and 2) Trump will never concede anyway.

    1. 3) Fund raising! He’s got a few hundred mil coming due soon and his overseas lender (who totally doesn’t look like Winnie the Poo) is awfully cross with him.

    2. Trump’s branding won’t tolerate him accepting that he is (and has been all along) a loser.

  41. What is really interesting is that in the 300+ comments on this post, not one “pro-Biden” commentator takes the position that even if fraud or improper counting is suspected we should err on the side of caution and investigation.

    Instead what you will find is a lot of name calling, threats, and allegations of being a conspiracy theorist, and relying upon the “media” to “prove” there are no substantial allegations. Not one will say even though unlikely it is imperative that the core of democracy, the vote, be protected.

    Compare and contrast this to the left wing controversy of the day. We are told “believe them” or “what would they lie” or some similar line. And even if the allegation is not proven (or turns out fake) the justification is “well it happens to others anyhow.” Here though if you allege fraud you are some sort of crackpot conspiracy theorist who deserves to be drawn and quartered in the public square.

    Take notice, and for you on the left who think that the media can appoint the “president-elect” by “calling” an election despite real questions of legitimacy, don’t expect the other half to care next time around.

    1. Because absent evidence, that’s not a really useful concession to make, now is it?

      My not kowtowing to your fantasies is not some validation of my villainy.

      1. No but it does give us a good idea of what fantasy world you live in. That is one where the KKK is behind every corner in Chicago, but there is absolutely no election fraud whatsoever. Nothing worth even contemplating any type of investigation. Must be one hell of a bong you smoke every morning…

    2. You haven’t provided one good reason why we should humor crazy people. It’s not like doing so is going to change your behavior. We’ve seen you move the goalposts so often that this just isn’t cute any more. Throw your tantrum. Get it over with so the rest of us can go on being citizens in a democratic republic.

      When you’ve got hard evidence of actual fraud, let us know. It’s rare but we all agree it should be prosecuted when it happens no matter which candidate it favors.

    3. “What is really interesting is that in the 300+ comments on this post, not one “pro-Biden” commentator takes the position that even if fraud or improper counting is suspected we should err on the side of caution and investigation.”

      Change “suspected” to “reasonably suspected” and you might get some takers. The fact that some nutbags believe every conspiracy theory that comes along is not evidence that the conspiracy theories are true and correct. Come up with some evidence of corruption of the election that doesn’t trace back to Rudy and his stooge squad, and we’ll talk. But “our guy can’t possibly have lost! therefore any election returns that show Biden winning must be fraudulent!” is, and will remain, worthy of ridicule.

    4. “What is really interesting is that in the 300+ comments on this post, not one “pro-Biden” commentator takes the position that even if fraud or improper counting is suspected we should err on the side of caution and investigation.”

      Suspected by normal people, or just the conspiracy-theorists who see fraud everywhere except coming from their fraudster-in-chief?

  42. In today’s completely NOT SHOCKING news, Grampa Gompers is a gullible old guy who believes whatever BS is shoveled down his willing throat, and then passes it on.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prank-video-idUSKBN27Q1NU

    That’s right. Grampa Gompers believed another hoax that was obviously fake, and angrily defended it here! Will Grampa Gompers and his enablers here change their behavior?

    HA! OF COURSE NOT! They will just move on to the next hoax and pass it around, because FRAUD!!11!!

  43. Let me ask a question.

    Let’s say it turns out that someone, perhaps an election worker, tampered with ballots and changed 500 of them from Trump to Biden. (Or discarded 500 ballots).

    That would make no difference to who won the election, or even won a single state.

    What should happen to that person? Should he or she be prosecuted? What is the appropriate sentence/fine? Or should we just ignore it and celebrate the new administration?

    1. The person should be prosecuted, of course. There are laws in every state (AFAIK) w/r/t ballot tampering.

      1. (And that would be whether or not the ballots changed from Biden to Trump or Trump to Biden … you need to make sure that systemic attempts to interfere with the elections, like intentionally altering 500 ballots, are prosecuted)

        1. ” you need to make sure that systemic attempts to interfere with the elections”

          Such as systematically disenfranchising people who don’t vote for your candidates?

  44. In case it’s not obvious, none of this matters. Grifters gonna grift.

    Trump’s campaign hasn’t hire the “A” team of attorneys. There is no grand legal theory. The campaign staff is only on until Nov. 30.

    Those fundraising emails? They aren’t going to legal challenges. They are going to Trump and to the RNC. Go on- read them carefully. They claim (in all-caps, because of course!) that they are soliciting money to stop the fraud and the illegal votes, but they are really about raising money for Trump’s campaign debt (Trump does know debt!) that can roll over for his future use, and for the RNC.

    *shrug* The last person left defending the grifter is the one being conned. Always.

    1. It’s more unseemly than you suggest: Trump loaned his campaign almost $50 million, so a lot of those contributions are going to end up in Trump’s checking account.

  45. I have no objection when Trump pursues his legitimate legal remedies, and when he asks for recounts to which he’s entitled. But his scattergun attack, which includes many claims that have no chance of success and no chance of altering the results even if they did succeed, seems more like an abuse of process than an appropriate use of the legal system to determine whether the electoral system is functioning properly. And the fact that he’s using half of the money contributed to contest the election to retire his campaign debt (see https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/07/trump-email-fundraising-would-pay-campaign-debt-fine-print-says/6202250002/ ) suggests that he has ulterior motives.

    1. The problem may well be that he’s not getting good legal advice. If he actually believes that he has a chance of prevailing in court and being declared the winner of the election, then his delusional ranting is slightly less odious. It seems he’s having difficulty keeping qualified lawyers on the payroll, and there’s this one lawyer he DOES have and is quite willing to feed Uncle Don’s paranoid conspiracy theories in exchange for five-figure-per-day billing, to be paid by the suckers, er, supporters of the President (as if these two terms aren’t synonomous.)

  46. This article reads like it was written by somebody who is just now coming to the realization that Donald Trump is not good at being President.

Please to post comments