[EL] Accepting the results of the election

Thu Oct 20 07:34:47 PDT 2016

Thanks, Jim. Didn’t realize Pence went from law school to radio. 

From: JBoppjr at aol.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 5:23 AM
To: weichpm at earthlink.net ; 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

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/20161020/38d91fb2/attachment.html>