[EL] Accepting the results of the election

Thu Oct 20 08:15:34 PDT 2016

Does anyone on this Listserve honestly think that Secretary Clinton would
not challenge the vote total if Trump wins, but the election is close in a
key state?  Of course she would: she be a fool not to.  And, I strongly
suspect, NO ONE on this Listserve would condemn her for it.

Does anyone on this Listserve honestly believe that Mr. Trump should not
have the same right to challenge the vote total if Secretary Clinton wins,
but the election is close in a key state?  I don't know the answer to that
one.  But, I strongly suspect that, if he were to do so, some on this
Listserve would condemn him for "attacking democracy" or some such
something.

The reality, though, is what Jim Bopp expressed: the law allows for these
challenges.  And democracy is served (not hindered) when they are brought,
because it allows the system to make certain that the votes were properly
counted and the right candidate is awarded victory when the results are
canvassed.

Now, those who REALLY believe that Trump meant that he will -- what, I
don't know, call out his "troops in armed rebellion? -- if Clinton wins,
well, I understand why you are upset.  I don't think that was what he meant
at all, though.  He MIGHT have wanted that to be a possible interpretation,
because some of his supporters probably want him to do that.  But, I don't
think that HE would actually do it.  And, frankly, I think that it is silly
to suppose that he would attempt such a thing.  But, that's my view, and I
suspect some of you will disagree vigorously.

Joseph
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue, Esq.**
cell: 480.737.1321
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com

** Licensed in Arizona and Ohio*

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender
and permanently delete the message.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK
PRODUCT.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this communication
was not written and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:34 AM, <weichpm at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ab2b3bf8/attachment.html>