2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[old salt]

Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

Read the links I posted. Nothing that Kelly could say would convince you otherwise.

[cradleandshoot]

Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

MD, i have enjoyed the back and forth on this topic of Gen. Kelly. Normally i would apologize to you for my harsh tone towards you. This is not the the case here for this old soldier. i have a very serious question for you. i will try to side step all of the other minefields in this conversation. Gen Kelly decides trump is a raving bat crap crazy insane lunatic. We have now ventured into the 25th amendment territory. Explain for me the process how Gen Kelly goes about dealing with this truly bizarre and unique situation? He can't go up the chain of command because besides trump he is at the top of the chain of command. I don't ask this to be combative, i just wonder what does Kelly do? Who does he take his complaint to? The media is out of the question. How do you go about throwing your boss under the bus in this situation. There is only one realistic option, you resign your position and move along. After that, without going public, how do you get this ball rolling without creating a chitstorm in the process.

[MDlaxfan76]

Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

Read the links I posted. Nothing that Kelly could say would convince you otherwise.

I read the links; I repeat, it will be interesting to hear what Kelly has to say directly, not through anonymous sources.

Does he, for instance, have a perspective on the current travesty of Trump's claims that the election was rigged, full of fraud, he won, no transition?

[seacoaster]

Kelly pulls down a dusty thin volume off the shelf called the Constitution, and peruses the 25th Amendment. He sees that it doesn't mention the CoS, but says this:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office

General Kelly says, "Oh shoot. I have to recruit a few of his sycophants, acting cabinet members and other toadies who would make Kim Jong blush. Hmmmm. I am screwed. Back to work."

The 25th Amendment contemplates bucking the "chain of command." Putting the nation over the leader, over the party.

[MDlaxfan76]

Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

MD, i have enjoyed the back and forth on this topic of Gen. Kelly. Normally i would apologize to you for my harsh tone towards you. This is not the the case here for this old soldier. i have a very serious question for you. i will try to side step all of the other minefields in this conversation. Gen Kelly decides trump is a raving bat dump crazy insane lunatic. We have now ventured into the 25th amendment territory. Explain for me the process how Gen Kelly goes about dealing with this truly bizarre and unique situation? He can't go up the chain of command because besides trump he is at the top of the chain of command. I don't ask this to be combative, i just wonder what does Kelly do? Who does he take his complaint to? The media is out of the question. How do you go about throwing your boss under the bus in this situation. There is only one realistic option, you resign your position and move along. After that, without going public, how do you get this ball rolling without creating a chitstorm in the process.

I don't agree with your ironclad assumption that he shouldn't go public. He can and he should. After leaving and NOW.

On the other hand, while still in the CoS position I can imagine him thinking he had options that are more private, figuring out whether others agree re 25th, though I don't think that was ever really an option given the composition of the players necessary. He likely would have some others agreeing, but far from enough, regardless of the correctness of the judgment.

Right now, Trump is the one causing a 'storm'...time to end it. Kelly could help.

[jhu72]

Georgia Recount won't change the outcome. Biden still won Georgia.

[Matnum PI]

The Republican nominees for the Federal Election Commission said that they do not see evidence of widespread election fraud and that they believe Biden is the projected winner of the presidential contest. wapo.st/3nClhyZ

[Matnum PI]

RT @chrislhayes: It's a lifetime ago, but it used to be an extremely common conservative talking point to complain about frivilous lawsuits and people that sued everyone over every damn thing.

[Matnum PI]

RT @kylegriffin1: Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs has had to release a statement describing "ongoing and escalating threats of violence" against her, her family and her office. She pledged that "intimidation tactics will not prevent me from performing the duties I swore an oath to do."

[old salt]

Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

Read the links I posted. Nothing that Kelly could say would convince you otherwise.

I read the links; I repeat, it will be interesting to hear what Kelly has to say directly, not through anonymous sources.

Does he, for instance, have a perspective on the current travesty of Trump's claims that the election was rigged, full of fraud, he won, no transition?

One more link which illustrates my point re the child separation policy. In Mar 2017, early in his DHS tenure, Kelly acknowledges that it was being considered as a deterrent, but it was not implemented during his DHS tenure. It was introduced over a year later, in Apr 2018, by AG Sessions. Kelly has said that he & DHS were blindsided. It was no longer a DHS policy. DoJ was in the lead.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190625 ... fore-trump

FTR -- family separations were already taking place in previous admins. In 2014, it was limited by court order, creating the "catch & release" loophole. This restriction prompted a flood of migrants with minors & unaccompanied minors, exploiting the resulting loophole. There was already a significant number of unaccompanied minors in fed care when Trump took office. The zero tolerance policy pushed by Sessions (to please Trump) grew the problem into a crisis.

[old salt]

Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

Read the links I posted. Nothing that Kelly could say would convince you otherwise.

I read the links; I repeat, it will be interesting to hear what Kelly has to say directly, not through anonymous sources.

Does he, for instance, have a perspective on the current travesty of Trump's claims that the election was rigged, full of fraud, he won, no transition?

One more link which illustrates my point re the child separation policy. In Mar 2017, early in his DHS tenure, Kelly acknowledges that it was being considered as a deterrent, but it was not implemented during his DHS tenure. It was introduced over a year later, in Apr 2018, by AG Sessions. Kelly has said that he & DHS were blindsided. It was no longer a DHS policy. DoJ was in the lead.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190625 ... fore-trump

FTR -- family separations were already taking place in previous admins. In 2014, it was limited by court order, creating the "catch & release" loophole. This restriction prompted a flood of migrants with minors & unaccompanied minors, exploiting the resulting loophole. There was already a significant number of unaccompanied minors in fed care when Trump took office. The zero tolerance policy pushed by Sessions (to please Trump) grew the problem into a crisis.

[Matnum PI]

Trump comfortably carried Chaska, MN in 2016. This time, he lost by 9 pts — a dramatic shift that similarly played out in suburban counties across the US.

"I just felt like Trump needed to get out. Every time I saw him on the TV, my fists were clenching." nyti.ms/2H7CMYl

[Typical Lax Dad]

Or, there really isn't conflict. I think that was the case with Kelly in the instance of the policy to separate parents and children at the border. If I recall correctly, he made statements at the time denying there was such a policy, statements which were later proven to be flat untrue.

But we don't actually know enough about what went down when Kelly was CoS to really have the full story, so I'm willing to make some positive assumptions about that period. But after he left, knowing what he knew, and watching the further actions of Trump, an act of "integrity", in service of his country, not the man, would have been to have spoken up. It would have mattered. It would now as well.

It was AG Sessions policy via his WH protege S Miller. It blindsided CoS Kelly & the new DHS.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ion-policy
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

There were numerous reported shouting matches between Trump & Kelly, on several issues.

But did Kelly actually disagree with the policy?...I seem to recall early denials that there was even such a policy, despite our later learning of the memo far earlier.

Again, I'd be very interested in what actually went down, where he objected (or had shouting matches) and most importantly his view of Trump's fitness for the position. But not to sell books. I have no issue with folks making a buck selling books, but there's a time when country over self is what really matters. Step up now, General.

The early denials were because CoS Kelly & DHS were blindsided. Sessions just did it & secured Trump's approval via S Miller.
Kelly & DHS recommended against it but couldn't block it.

And we know that because Kelly himself has told us or better yet told Congress under oath?

Or is that just speculating based on 'anonymous sources'?
Not saying it's incorrect, but would it not be helpful to hear from the horses' mouth?

And why the denial if the denial was untrue? "Integrity"??

Read the links I posted. Nothing that Kelly could say would convince you otherwise.

I read the links; I repeat, it will be interesting to hear what Kelly has to say directly, not through anonymous sources.

Does he, for instance, have a perspective on the current travesty of Trump's claims that the election was rigged, full of fraud, he won, no transition?

One more link which illustrates my point re the child separation policy. In Mar 2017, early in his DHS tenure, Kelly acknowledges that it was being considered as a deterrent, but it was not implemented during his DHS tenure. It was introduced over a year later, in Apr 2018, by AG Sessions. Kelly has said that he & DHS were blindsided. It was no longer a DHS policy. DoJ was in the lead.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190625 ... fore-trump

FTR -- family separations were already taking place in previous admins. In 2014, it was limited by court order, creating the "catch & release" loophole. This restriction prompted a flood of migrants with minors & unaccompanied minors, exploiting the resulting loophole. There was already a significant number of unaccompanied minors in fed care when Trump took office. The zero tolerance policy pushed by Sessions (to please Trump) grew the problem into a crisis.

[jhu72]

RT @kylegriffin1: Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs has had to release a statement describing "ongoing and escalating threats of violence" against her, her family and her office. She pledged that "intimidation tactics will not prevent me from performing the duties I swore an oath to do."

... probably those scary antifa boys.

[jhu72]

Kelly pulls down a dusty thin volume off the shelf called the Constitution, and peruses the 25th Amendment. He sees that it doesn't mention the CoS, but says this:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office

General Kelly says, "Oh shoot. I have to recruit a few of his sycophants, acting cabinet members and other toadies who would make Kim Jong blush. Hmmmm. I am screwed. Back to work."

The 25th Amendment contemplates bucking the "chain of command." Putting the nation over the leader, over the party.

... silly boy. You obviously don't understand today's republiCONs.

[jhu72]

Another unqualified judge approved by the republiCONS. Another lifetime appointment for a judge that the ABA rates as unqualified. She never tried a case, in her life, and now has a lifetime appointment. This is a specialty of Trumps, appointing unqualified judges. This is his 10th such appointment in 4 years. Bush had 3 in 8 years. Obama had 0 in 8 years.

[kramerica.inc]

Speaking of another lifetime appointment- Biden wasn't qualified for his first job in the Senate either.
She'll grow into the role, just like he did.


Being inexperienced and unqualified didn't stop Barack or your boy Trump from ascending to the highest heights either.

[CU88]

RT @chrislhayes: It's a lifetime ago, but it used to be an extremely common conservative talking point to complain about frivilous lawsuits and people that sued everyone over every damn thing.

None of them exist on these boards, only Forever Trumpers...

[seacoaster]

From the Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/opin ... e=Homepage

"Joe Biden’s lead in the presidential election results in Pennsylvania has now surpassed 81,000 votes, far exceeding Donald Trump’s 44,000-vote victory margin there four years ago. Yet the Trump campaign continues to claim in court huge but incalculable levels of fraud, particularly in Philadelphia.

As with cases filed elsewhere around the country, Mr. Trump will not succeed. Even a cursory examination of the data refutes any notion of substantial voting fraud.

As a threshold matter, it is important to understand how eerily similar the 2020 results in Philadelphia were to 2016. As of Tuesday evening, 743,966 votes for president had been counted in Philadelphia — an increase of 34,348 votes from 2016. This 4.8 percent increase in turnout is less than half of the 11.6 percent increase in turnout seen in the state as a whole.

Not only was the increase in the number of ballots cast in Philadelphia from 2016 to 2020 relatively modest, but Mr. Trump won more votes and a greater percentage of the votes there than he did in 2016. He received 18 percent of the two-party vote this year, up from 15.7 percent in 2016, gaining 24,122 votes. In contrast, Mr. Biden received two percentage points less of the two-party vote in the city than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. If any fraud was attempted in Philadelphia, it failed miserably.

Mr. Biden also did worse in Philadelphia in comparison with 2016 than in most other counties in the state. Mr. Biden outpaced Mrs. Clinton in 57 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. Though he got one percentage point more of the two-party vote than she did statewide, he underperformed her by 2.3 points in Philadelphia County — the biggest percentage-point decline in any county in the state. Philadelphia stands out as the county where Mr. Biden did particularly poorly, not suspiciously well.

Just because Mr. Biden did worse than Mrs. Clinton and underperformed expectations this year does not disprove possible fraud, of course. Central to the “bad things are happening in Philadelphia” claim by Mr. Trump is the notion that a suspicious number of absentee ballots came in for Mr. Biden in Philadelphia. Absentee ballot fraud — either from dead people voting or election officials stuffing ballot boxes — is central to the Trump campaign’s claim of a stolen election. Again, the available evidence suggests nothing irregular.

Mr. Biden received a higher percentage of the vote by mail than he did in the Election Day vote throughout the state. Philadelphia, which is much more Democratic than the rest of the state — 76 percent of the county’s voters are registered as Democrats, compared to 47 percent statewide — lies just where we would expect it to be, given the partisanship of the county.

Skeptics of this analysis are likely to say that it is irrelevant, because the margins were so close that even a small number of manufactured ballots could make a difference. To this, we offer two rebuttals.

The first is that Mr. Biden’s lead in the state, over 81,000 votes, is not close, and continues to grow. Second, for Mr. Biden’s lead to be the result of “stuffed” absentee ballots in Philadelphia would require that over 20 percent of mail ballots there to have been fraudulent. Such a large number of questionable ballots would have tripped off alarm bells for the Democratic and Republican officials who were overseeing the count.

Statistical evidence such as this should not be necessary to cast doubt on the fraud claims being made in court by Mr. Trump’s campaign. The arguments simply are implausible on their face, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. The allegations suggest a conspiracy or a remarkable coincidence of Republican and Democratic election officials in multiple states looking past or covering up hundreds of thousands of illegal votes.

That’s not all that is implausible. The purported fraud appears to have affected only the top of the ballot and not the down-ballot races. Republican congressional candidates were surprisingly successful in those same states where allegations of illegality in the presidential race have been made.

All of this may seem like beating a dead horse or trying to kill a fly with a bazooka, given the Trump campaign’s repeated losses in court. (On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the campaign’s contention that observers in Philadelphia were kept too far away to properly watch the vote counting.) But the president’s dangerous claims of fraud are taking root in the public consciousness, causing significant doubt, especially among Republicans. Sixty-one percent expressed no confidence in a recent survey that the election was held fairly.

One does not need to place witnesses on the stand to have them recant their claims or to embarrass the lawyers who cannot support these allegations. The evidence available in the public record demonstrates on its own that the claim of widespread fraud is itself a fraud.

The more compelling conclusion is the one reached last week by the election and security experts in the Department of Homeland Security, which declared that the 2020 election was “the most secure in American history.”

Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Stanford, and Charles Stewart III, a professor of political science at M.I.T., are founders of the Stanford-M. I. T. Healthy Elections Project.

[foreverlax]

Speaking of another lifetime appointment- Biden wasn't qualified for his first job in the Senate either.
She'll grow into the role, just like he did.


Being inexperienced and unqualified didn't stop Barack or your boy Trump from ascending to the highest heights either.

At least BHO tried to grow in to the job....DOPUS never made an effort. Complete lack of leadership skills.