[EL] Accepting the results of the election

Wed Oct 19 21:26:57 PDT 2016

Rick, this is the second time in so many days that you have personally  
attacked me.

Yesterday you said:

3.       If you  don’t like the selection of articles, you can continue to 
send your own.  Or you can unsubscribe to this list. Or you can do with my 
posts what some  list members tell me they do with yours: delete without  
reading.

I am sure every  one on this list serve has deleted posts without reading 
them, including myself,  but I have never felt a need to personally attack 
them by publicly broadcasting  that.

And  today:

I always thought of you as a  straight shooter before this election and 
this voter fraud garbage. We’ve  disagreed but I’ve seen you as making 
fundamentally honest arguments.  

It is an unfortunate trait of some to assume that because they  disagree 
with someone, the other one is being "dishonest."  I am sorry to  see that you 
are in that number.

What I said was "This is particularly chilling here in  Indiana when our 
State Police have just uncovered thousands of instances of  voter registration 
fraud in 56 of our 92 counties that is obviously  a precursor to massive 
voter fraud."  Precursor  means "one  that _precedes_ 
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedes)  and  indicates the approach of another." I 
obviously did not say that voter  fraud had already occurred, nor did I claim 
to have any evidence of it. That  would be an impossibility since very little 
voting has occurred so far  and actually voter fraud may not occur because 
our State Police is all  over this. So you called me "dishonest" for saying 
something I clearly did not  say.

Sad  to see you resort to this.  Jim  Bopp.

In a message dated 10/19/2016 11:46:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

“Commit massive voter fraud.” 
No  evidence whatsoever of that. There are serious questions about what’s 
going on  in Indiana, and I say let’s wait till we know all the  facts. 
And  voter registration fraud does not generally lead to fraudulently cast 
votes.  http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87081 
I  always thought of you as a straight shooter before this election and 
this  voter fraud garbage. We’ve disagreed but I’ve seen you as making 
fundamentally  honest arguments.  
And  I’ll let others continue this with you if they see it as  fruitful. 

From:  "JBoppjr at aol.com"  <JBoppjr at aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:39  PM
To: "rkelner at cov.com" <rkelner at cov.com>
Cc: Rick  Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Election Law Listserv  
<law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Accepting the results  of the election

What is hideous and  unprecedented is this concerted attempt by liberals 
and Democrats to try to  preclude a candidate from utilizing perfectly 
appropriate and legal means to  ensure the fairness our elections by asking for a 
recount, if legally  available under state law. This is particularly chilling 
here in Indiana when  our State Police have just uncovered thousands of 
instances of voter  registration fraud in 56 of our 92 counties that is 
obviously a  precursor to massive voter fraud. 

_Click here: “Statement from  Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug 
Carter Regarding Possible Voter Fraud  ” from Indiana Stat_ 
(https://local.nixle.com/alert/5757504/)  

This looks like a  one two punch to me. Commit massive voter fraud and then 
force a candidate to  say in advance that he will accept the outcome on 
election day.  This is  a serious attack of the Rule of Law and an attempt to 
subvert  our elections.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated  10/19/2016 11:15:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
rkelner at cov.com  writes:

Of course a  presidential candidate can contest results in the 
exceptionally rare case of  a truly close election. But neither George W. Bush nor Al 
Gore would ever  have hesitated to say, prior to the election, that they would 
respect the  outcome of the election. That hideous distinction is now 
uniquely owned by  Donald Trump.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:08  PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>"  
<JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:

Some of  those on this list serve may have taken note of this exchange:

Chris  Wallace: "Will you accept the result of this election?"
Donald Trump: "I  will look at it at the time. ... I will keep you in 
suspense."
Hillary  Clinton: "That's horrifying."

Let me say that I think that Clinton's  reaction was as phony and as it was 
absurd. Al Gore did not accept the  results of the 2000 election. He sued 
for a recount in Florida which was not  resolved until early December by a 
decision of the US Supreme Court. Only  then, when no other legal recourse was 
possible, did he accept the results  of the election. This, of course, was 
Gore's legal right to do. It would be  ridiculous for Trump to say in 
advance that he will accept the election day  count, if it would be appropriate to 
institute a recount.

State laws  provide legal remedies to contest election or ask for recounts 
under certain  circumstances. It is perfectly appropriate for a candidate to 
use these if  legally available. Jim  Bopp
_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u
ci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/2a8b0426/attachment.html>