[EL] Accepting the results of the election

Thu Oct 20 08:23:41 PDT 2016

It seems to me that there is a difference between seeking a recount in a
close state where poll worker errors may have changed the outcome, and
actively seeking to undermine election's legitimacy by making
unsubstantiated claims that the media and voters in inner-city precincts
have rigged the election.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Joseph E. La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d02a36c3/attachment.html>