[EL] Accepting the results of the election

Thu Oct 20 12:04:51 PDT 2016

There is a chasm as wide as the distance from here to Venezuela between asking for a recount in a close election and saying three weeks before the election that you think it is rigged and won’t say whether you will accept the results or not. Of course, if there are close states within the automatic recount margin, they should be recounted and the Supreme Court should not stop the recount and the state legislature should not promise to ignore the recount and send their own electors. 

RuthAlice

> On Oct 20, 2016, at 8:15 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Paul.Weich.Law at gmail.com>
> www.PWLawArizona.com <http://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 <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 <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 <>] 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 <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <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/20161020/382067b2/attachment.html>