[EL] Accepting the results of the election

[Larry Levine]

And once again there is an attempt to rescue Trump by others who have to re-interpret what he says after he says it. That in and of itself should be strong reason to be leery of him as a potential President. Words and their meanings are everything in international relations and legislation as well as in the law. As you point out, no one knows that better than an attorney. So, when Trump leaves the room after a meeting with some foreign leader, who is going to go in and explain what he really meant and why would that other person believe the explainer instead of the President who actually said the words. Being inarticulate is no recommendation for this job.

Larry

 

From: JBoppjr at aol.com [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:52 PM
To: SVladeck at law.utexas.edu; larrylevine at earthlink.net; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election

 

Thank you Steve and yes I honestly believe that Trump meant the results of the election on election day. Fortunately for you, me and Mrs. Clinton, we are all lawyers and have spent out lives parsing words.  It is perfectly obvious that Trump has not.  His speech is halting and disjointed and he often misuses words in incomplete sentences.  As a lawyer, I find this disconcerting but many find it part of his charm and attractiveness. So when Wallace said accept the "result" of the election, it is perfectly understandable that a layman would understand that to be the result of the election on election day.  Jim Bopp

 

In a message dated 10/19/2016 11:59:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, SVladeck at law.utexas.edu <mailto:SVladeck at law.utexas.edu>  writes:

Jim: The question Chris Wallace asked was not whether Mr. Trump would accept the “election day count”; it was whether he would accept the “result” of the election. I suspect we would all agree that the “result” of the election is not necessarily what the TV networks report on election night, but rather the result when totals are certified, any available and appropriate legal challenges thereto are complete (which was the net consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore), and the Electoral College does its thing. That’s the result Al Gore accepted in 2000 – and a result I’m sure he would have been willing to say he’d accept if asked at the final debate, at 3 a.m. on election night, or anytime thereafter.

 

Perhaps Jim honestly thinks Mr. Trump meant the former, and intended to leave open the possibility of appropriately challenging recounts in states in potentially dispositive in which they’re automatically triggered, a la 2000. Given what else he has said on the campaign trail on the topic, it seems fairly clear to me that that’s not what Mr. Trump meant, and that to compare his remarks tonight to 2000 is therefore specious.

 

-steve

 



From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>  [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Levine
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:52 PM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> ; rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> ; law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu> 
Subject: Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election

 

If I recall, Gore was on his way to make his concession speech, when the secretary of state in Florida announced the result was within the margin for a mandatory recount. That was when both sides dug in their heels for the fight. 

Larry

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>  [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:06 PM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> ; law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu> 
Subject: [EL] Accepting the results of the election

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161019/1adc0f2f/attachment.html>