2020 Presidential Election

[bundabergdevil]

Attachment 11852

I know what I did.

[MarkD83]

To half the country, yes. But to the other half, they look like heroes.

And that is the real problem in all of this.

There are several comments about the republican senate candidates in this thread. I picked SDs post to respond to for convenience.

The key to run off elections is not to bring out your base or convince someone from the other base to switch. Instead you need to convince the voters who could not stand to vote for either candidate to vote for you. Assume those voters could not vote for the republicans because they were too Trumpy. Well they just proved it. So if I were the democrats I would come out and hammer the fact that you were reluctant to vote for me but you really could not vote for a Trump republican so why not pick me. This sounds crazy but might work

[AustinDevil]

Awesome. Now the Dems are resorting to name-calling. I suppose it was just a matter of time. SMH.

This has always been a huge problem I have with the Trump administration. Any time a politician defies political norms, and shows it can be effective, the other side adopts it. The Trump administration has done a number of these things with zero pushback from his party, and in the process shown the political benefit.

So, lots of things that were once against the political norms (name calling, violating the Logan Act, refusing to hear nominations, installing political sycophants into formerly non-political positions, making accusations without evidence, etc, etc, etc) will now be the political norm. There is no way to put the genies back into those bottles.

(None of this is to defend Democratic behavior. It is important to remember that one party being the bad guys does not automatically prove the other side are the good guys; far from it.)

So much #whatabout hand-wringing in these two posts. Did either of you stop to consider that Senator Loeffler loudly trumpeted her endorsement by the QAnon-embracing House candidate (now Congresscritter-elect)? And even campaigned at a joint event with that QAnon-embracing candidate? Let's not decry name-calling when the name ... fits.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...rsement-429635

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...eene-set-event

[tommy]

Indeed. In my mind that is part of the “vote-counting and challenging” procedure and I would be absolutely shocked if the legal system does not hold up here. Recall that Bush v Gore only happened because the vote in Florida was so close that a few number of ballots could swing the entire Presidential election. Nothing suggests that to be the case this year.

It will be a long few weeks if we keep paying attention to it. Perhaps I need to focus on learning how to *not* pay attention to it.

The bolded is the key. I'm choosing the following attitude: Trump - say and do whatever you want. I don't care. I stopped listening to you. You lost. You're old news. Your desperate lawsuits are baseless and have no chance of success. Keep yelling from the basement, keep tweeting, do whatever. It doesn't matter. You're irrelevant, you're a short timer, and you're out of here. This country is moving on without you. Buh and bye.

[AustinDevil]

From where I am sitting the system is working. We had record turnout all around; voting procedures held up; now vote-counting and challenging procedures seem to be holding up as well. My guess is that we see states certify their results with minimal issues, the electoral college do its thing and then the inauguration of Joe Biden in January, 2021 aka 18,000 years from now.

Indeed. In my mind that is part of the “vote-counting and challenging” procedure and I would be absolutely shocked if the legal system does not hold up here. Recall that Bush v Gore only happened because the vote in Florida was so close that a few number of ballots could swing the entire Presidential election. Nothing suggests that to be the case this year.

It will be a long few weeks if we keep paying attention to it. Perhaps I need to focus on learning how to *not* pay attention to it.

Do you know what the GSA is? There is nothing normal about what is occurring, right now, to delay and thwart the transition.

[cato]

Do you know what the GSA is? There is nothing normal about what is occurring, right now, to delay and thwart the transition.

Yes. I’ve negotiated several leases with the GSA and my neighbor works for the GSA. There is nothing normal about this for sure, but we cannot be surprised about the GSA’s actions with Trump refusing to concede and the election results not yet final, can we?

[bundabergdevil]

Yes. I’ve negotiated several leases with the GSA and my neighbor works for the GSA. There is nothing normal about this for sure, but we cannot be surprised about the GSA’s actions with Trump refusing to concede and the election results not yet final, can we?

I'm certain this was part of the scenario analysis that occurred in the lead up to the election to game what might happen if Trump does what he told us he would do and is now doing. I don't know what the recourse is but I'm assuming if Trump forbade - and his appointees followed through - flipping any of the formal transition switches (like the release of GSA monies to aid in the transition), then Biden's team would just have a tougher than normal first few weeks because their insight into a lot of agency operations would effectively begin on inauguration day.

I fully expect document shredding, hard drive erasing, obfuscation of epic proportions, anything they can do to make Biden's assumption of power harder.

[gumbomoop]

So much #whatabout hand-wringing in these two posts. Did either of you stop to consider that Senator Loeffler loudly trumpeted her endorsement by the QAnon-embracing House candidate (now Congresscritter-elect)? And even campaigned at a joint event with that QAnon-embracing candidate? Let's not decry name-calling when the name ... fits.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...rsement-429635

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...eene-set-event

I agree with AustinDevil here. Dems in the run-offs will want to develop the most effective strategy to tie Loeffler and potentially Perdue to QNuts. The Senate is at stake. Loeffler more than Perdue (I think) has tied herself to the QNuts; Dems didn’t force her to make a fool of herself.

Now, maybe Loeffler will double down and explicitly endorse Q. But whether she goes all in on Q support or tries to play it down as too explosive, she’s already on record. Either way, Dems won’t drop this. We’ll be able to see going forward whether the nickname itself, “QAnon Kelly,” becomes a major theme.

[bundabergdevil]

So, let's say Trump never does anything to formally concede and tells all his agency personnel to not cooperate. Are they simply not permitted into the buildings on January 21st? That will be a he** of a spectacle.

Barr authorizes Justice to look into substantial allegations of voter fraud. IANAL and so do not know enough about these things to see this as a normal or an alarming step.

Seems consistent with an administration gearing up to fight the hand over of power in every conceivable way though.

[sagegrouse]

I don't know every state, but I am super impressed at how professional and painstakingly accurate the process seems to have been. I have seen this in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Colorado.

I think we learned a big lesson in 2000, and we learned another huge one in 2016 with the Russian attempted attacks.

[AustinDevil]

Yes. I’ve negotiated several leases with the GSA and my neighbor works for the GSA. There is nothing normal about this for sure, but we cannot be surprised about the GSA’s actions with Trump refusing to concede and the election results not yet final, can we?

Agree with this post, and of course it is no surprise.

[Skydog]

Barr authorizes Justice to look into substantial allegations of voter fraud. IANAL and so do not know enough about these things to see this as a normal or an alarming step.

Seems consistent with an administration gearing up to fight the hand over of power in every conceivable way though.

According to AP, not normal:
“It gives prosecutors the ability to go around longstanding Justice Department policy that normally would prohibit such overt actions before the election is formally certified.”

[bundabergdevil]

According to AP, not normal:
“It gives prosecutors the ability to go around longstanding Justice Department policy that normally would prohibit such overt actions before the election is formally certified.”

Thanks. So, to our resident lawyers, is that meaningful (if it's not normal). Are we assuming that an army of Trump loyalist DoJ lawyers would take advantage of Barr's changing the policy?

[OldPhiKap]

Thanks. So, to our resident lawyers, is that meaningful (if it's not normal). Are we assuming that an army of Trump loyalist DoJ lawyers would take advantage of Barr's changing the policy?

Hard to tell. I would like to think it is a CYA memo from Barr so he can tell Trump he did something and avoid getting fired. It seems like double-talk to me.

DOJ staff lawyers are a pretty serious group and take their independence seriously. Can’t speak for all of the political appointees.

[OldPhiKap]

Hard to tell. I would like to think it is a CYA memo from Barr so he can tell Trump he did something and avoid getting fired. It seems like double-talk to me.

DOJ staff lawyers are a pretty serious group and take their independence seriously. Can’t speak for all of the political appointees.

Following that, some key sections in the memo (taken from tweets — I am sure there are parts taken out and maybe out of order):

"I authorize you to pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certification of elections in your jurisdictions in certain cases, as I have already done in specific instances. . . . Such inquiries and reviews may be conducted if there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of
irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State."

"While serious allegations should be handled with great care, specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries."

"Nothing here should be taken as any indication that the Department has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of any
election."

This doesn’t say anything new. I think it is just to placate Trump, and the press is over-reacting. But we shall see.

[sagegrouse]

Hard to tell. I would like to think it is a CYA memo from Barr so he can tell Trump he did something and avoid getting fired. It seems like double-talk to me.

DOJ staff lawyers are a pretty serious group and take their independence seriously. Can’t speak for all of the political appointees.

I expect it's perfunctory and an answer to Trump screaming through the phone, "Do something! They're stealing the election from me!"

I have not heard anything that suggests any wrongdoing, even in insignificant numbers.

[bundabergdevil]

Following that, some key sections in the memo (taken from tweets — I am sure there are parts taken out:



This doesn’t say anything new. I think it is just to placate a Trump, and the press is over-reacting. But we shall see.

Like pate on a baguette slide, the sporks must be spread.

Thanks. That doesn't sound as nefarious as perhaps the headlines read. Hope it is a CYA move. I had a hard time imagining that a battalion of lawyers would take that as a cue to go to town.

[cato]

Thanks. So, to our resident lawyers, is that meaningful (if it's not normal). Are we assuming that an army of Trump loyalist DoJ lawyers would take advantage of Barr's changing the policy?

Hard to tell. I would like to think it is a CYA memo from Barr so he can tell Trump he did something and avoid getting fired. It seems like double-talk to me.

DOJ staff lawyers are a pretty serious group and take their independence seriously. Can’t speak for all of the political appointees.

If Barr’s memo to DOJ lawyers has been released, I have not seen it. This is the most detailed reporting on the instructions I have seen:

In a memo to US Attorneys, obtained by the AP, Barr wrote that investigations “may be conducted if there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.”

Peter Hamby (@PeterHamby) Tweeted:
For those retweeting the AP headline, here’s the slightly more watered-down basis for it: https://t.co/7c4BeggzDO https://twitter.com/PeterHamby/statu...469479424?s=20

ETA: scooped by OPK!

[CameronBornAndBred]

Hard to tell. I would like to think it is a CYA memo from Barr so he can tell Trump he did something and avoid getting fired. It seems like double-talk to me.

DOJ staff lawyers are a pretty serious group and take their independence seriously. Can’t speak for all of the political appointees.

Why would that matter? He's getting fired regardless.

[OldPhiKap]

Why would that matter? He's getting fired regardless.

Because the acting replacement could be much much much worse?

Plus if he gets fired, he may miss the Pardon Train.