The Election That Could Break America: What if Trump Refuses to Concede?

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Trump seems to be hoping the military will initiate a coup to support him, if he refuses to leave in the event he loses. If so, he's badly mistaken. His jibes at them for being "losers and suckers", didn't play well.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
:)

Looked up the quote. She said Biden shouldn't concede if it's close until all the ballots were counted. I really should have known. It's always weird when they lie about stuff anyone can look up.

Yeah, I'd seen it in context, but I just can't answer every allegation they throw out there, glad you took care of this one. I have everything-fatigue.
 

Truth7t7

New member
The Election That Could Break America


A lot of people, including Joe Biden, the Democratic Party nominee, have mis­conceived the nature of the threat. They frame it as a concern, unthinkable for presidents past, that Trump might refuse to vacate the Oval Office if he loses. They generally conclude, as Biden has, that in that event the proper authorities “will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.”

The worst case, however, is not that Trump rejects the election outcome. The worst case is that he uses his power to prevent a decisive outcome against him. If Trump sheds all restraint, and if his Republican allies play the parts he assigns them, he could obstruct the emergence of a legally unambiguous victory for Biden in the Electoral College and then in Congress. He could prevent the formation of consensus about whether there is any outcome at all. He could seize on that un­certainty to hold on to power.

Trump’s state and national legal teams are already laying the groundwork for postelection maneuvers that would circumvent the results of the vote count in battleground states. Ambiguities in the Constitution and logic bombs in the Electoral Count Act make it possible to extend the dispute all the way to Inauguration Day, which would bring the nation to a precipice. The Twentieth Amendment is crystal clear that the president’s term in office “shall end” at noon on January 20, but two men could show up to be sworn in. One of them would arrive with all the tools and power of the presidency already in hand.

“We are not prepared for this at all,” Julian Zelizer, a Prince­ton professor of history and public affairs, told me. “We talk about it, some worry about it, and we imagine what it would be. But few people have actual answers to what happens if the machinery of democracy is used to prevent a legitimate resolution to the election.”

Let us nothedge about one thing. Donald Trump may win or lose, but he will never concede. Not under any circumstance. Not during the Interregnum and not afterward. If compelled in the end to vacate his office, Trump will insist from exile, as long as he draws breath, that the contest was rigged.

Trump’s invincible commitment to this stance will be the most important fact about the coming Interregnum. It will deform the proceedings from beginning to end. We have not experienced anything like it before.

Maybe you hesitate. Is it a fact that if Trump loses, he will reject defeat, come what may? Do we know that? Technically, you feel obliged to point out, the proposition is framed in the future conditional, and prophecy is no man’s gift, and so forth. With all due respect, that is pettifoggery. We know this man. We cannot afford to pretend.

Trump’s behavior and declared intent leave no room to suppose that he will accept the public’s verdict if the vote is going against him. He lies prodigiously—to manipulate events, to secure advantage, to dodge accountability, and to ward off injury to his pride. An election produces the perfect distillate of all those motives.

. . . .

There is no truth to be found in dancing around this point, either: Trump does not want Black people to vote. (He said as much in 2017—on Martin Luther King Day, no less—to a voting-­rights group co-founded by King, according to a recording leaked to Politico.) He does not want young people or poor people to vote. He believes, with reason, that he is less likely to win reelection if turnout is high at the polls. This is not a “both sides” phenomenon. In present-day politics, we have one party that consistently seeks advantage in depriving the other party’s adherents of the right to vote.

Just under a year ago, Justin Clark gave a closed-door talk in Wisconsin to a select audience of Republican lawyers. He thought he was speaking privately, but someone had brought a recording device. He had a lot to say about Election Day operations, or “EDO.”

At the time, Clark was a senior lieutenant with Trump’s re­election campaign; in July, he was promoted to deputy campaign manager. “Wisconsin’s the state that is going to tip this one way or the other … So it makes EDO really, really, really important,” he said. He put the mission bluntly: “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes … [Democrats’] voters are all in one part of the state, so let’s start playing offense a little bit. And that’s what you’re going to see in 2020. That’s what’s going to be markedly different. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program, and we’re going to need all the help we can get.” (Clark later claimed that his remarks had been misconstrued, but his explanation made no sense in context.)


Of all the favorable signs for Trump’s Election Day operations, Clark explained, “first and foremost is the consent decree’s gone.” He was referring to a court order forbidding Republican operatives from using any of a long list of voter-purging and intimidation techniques. The expiration of that order was a “huge, huge, huge, huge deal,” Clark said.

His audience of lawyers knew what he meant. The 2020 presidential election will be the first in 40 years to take place without a federal judge requiring the Republican National Committee to seek approval in advance for any “ballot security” operations at the polls. In 2018, a federal judge allowed the consent decree to expire, ruling that the plaintiffs had no proof of recent violations by Republicans. The consent decree, by this logic, was not needed, because it worked.

. . . .

This year, with a judge no longer watching, the Republicans are recruiting 50,000 volunteers in 15 contested states to monitor polling places and challenge voters they deem suspicious-looking. Trump called in to Fox News on August 20 to tell Sean Hannity, “We’re going to have sheriffs and we’re going to have law enforcement and we’re going to have, hopefully, U.S. attorneys” to keep close watch on the polls. For the first time in decades, according to Clark, Republicans are free to combat voter fraud in “places that are run by Democrats.”

Much, much more at the link. It's a long article, one that needs to be studied, not just read.
As Trump and his press secretary have stated, he will be glad to vacate in a (Free) and (Fair) election.

Last count was 80 million mail in ballots have been sent out, almost all in Democratic States, already many instances of fraud, double, triple, ballots being sent to the same person, New Jersey several violations, New York had a high percentage of their vote invalidated because if mail in problems.

Ballots found in the trash, Michael Bloomberg is buying votes in Florida, paying criminals debt so they can vote, this being against the law, and we're 6 weeks away from the Nov 3rd election?

Sorta like that lady in 2018 running the election in Florida's Broward County, going around collecting harvested ballots after the polls closed.

Sun Sentinel

Audit finds 2018 election in Broward County was marred by waste, extra votes, unnecessary delays

By ANTHONY MAN
SOUTH FLORIDA SUN SENTINEL
MAY 26, 2020 AT 6:00 AM
svg%3E
JXRBLQN4X5F2DBBXISNKUPLDXY.jpg
Broward Supervisor of Elections Dr. Brenda C. Snipes waves goodbye to the media on Nov. 18, 2018, at the Broward Supervisor of Elections office in Lauderhill. She had been involved in the lengthy recount of votes in the 2018 midterm elections. That day, she also submitted her resignation. A new audit is reviewing what happened in Broward County voting in 2018. (Joe Cavaretta / Sun Sentinel)
Multiple shortcomings contributed to a problem-plagued 2018 election in Broward County, many of which were on public display while a national cable TV audience waited for Florida to recount votes in elections for governor and U.S. Senate. A controversial audit 18 months later is now detailing even more failings.

Among the issues raised in the audit:
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Last election included mail in ballots. By trump’s standard, he was *elected* due to massive voter fraud. He is fine with mail in voting in solidly red states.

Bottomline, more than half the country (the better half) despise the wannabe dictator.
 
Top