[EL] Accepting the results of the election

Thu Oct 20 06:01:03 PDT 2016

Ok sorry, one more final point.

I said Mrs. Clinton's reaction was phony.  Just last week she shook  her 
head approvingly when she stood with Al Gore when he refused to accept the  
results of the 2000 election, as is an article of faith by most liberals and  
Democrats that they have been arguing for years.

_Click  here: Last week Hillary agreed that Gore 'won' 2000 election - Hot 
Air Hot  Air_ 
(http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/20/last-week-hillary-agreed-gore-won-2000-election/)  

This "controversy" is really phony.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/20/2016 8:23:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
JBoppjr at aol.com writes:

As my final point on this, if I called up my brother-in-law, a  non-lawyer, 
and asked him what were the results of the election in his  town, he would 
tell me that Joe Blow won because he got the most votes on  election day.  
He would not say: "Sorry, I don't know because the  deadline for Steve Smith, 
the losing candidate, to file for a recount is not  until noon on Friday."  
So I am not "re-imterpreting" what he said but  giving what he said its 
plain meaning.

And Paul, Mike Pence is an attorney.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/20/2016 2:15:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
weichpm at earthlink.net writes:

Mr. Trump is presumably an intelligent man, watches all the shows and  has 
undoubtedly heard how much the specific words he says matter. However,  he 
has often shrugged off controversy over his words as being sarcastic, a  
joke, etc.

Therefore, the only reasonable assumption is that he knowingly said the  
words that he did tonight without attaching any conditions or explanation.  If 
he participated in this discussion with us, he would undoubtedly disagree  
with your attempt to cover for him. Just as he has in recent days with Mr.  
Pence (not an atty), Messrs. Giuliani and Christie (fellow attys), his  
daughter (perhaps an atty-to-be), etc.

His words tonight matter greatly. Unfortunately - in this case - yours  do 
not. Please stand down before he slams you down, too.

--Paul Weich

___________________
--Law  Offices of Paul Weich--
(480)  759-1983
Paul.Weich.Law at gmail.com
www.PWLawArizona.com

From: 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 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] On Behalf Of  Larry Levine
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:52  PM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu;  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]  On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent:  Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:06 PM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; 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

____________________________________
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.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/d683b4c2/attachment.html>