Trump's Executive Order

[birdie1971]

I think we may be about to witness something extraordinary with regards to the USA election.

It would appear that two years ago, Trump declared a “national emergency” to deal with foreign and domestic election interference. It was enacted under an Executive Order called “Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election” and was signed by him on 12th September 2018:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/

In essence, this gives him unprecedented powers to investigate and prosecute electoral fraud.

There's a long and detailed article here that goes into much more depth about it:
https://www.distributednews.com/474016.html

[jim360]

"not beyond the realms of possibility" is, sadly, so vague as to be meaningless. A better question to ask is why the Democrats who are supposed to have rigged this election forgot to do the same in the Congressional ballots, which have gone pretty badly for them (losing seats in the House when they were expected to gain, and failing to capture the senate).

A slightly more plausible explanation for what we've seen is that enough people dislike Trump that they'll vote him out personally, even if they still consider themselves Republicans (or, at least, not Democrats).

As to your second paragraph, I'm not sure either explanation is right. The second feels particularly strange: the logic of saying as little as possible during an investigation, refusing to concede, etc, I can certainly accept, but "saying as little as possible" is clearly undermined with his own constant tweeting, not to mention various officials spreading the word on his behalf (McEnany etc). Or that "press conference" from the White House a week or so back, where he took no questions whilst alleging major fraud. What I mean is that if this is his strategy then he's doing it badly, and should say nothing at all, even on twitter.

The first -- well, maybe, but I'd offer an alternative explanation, which is that Trump, a man who's built his career and persona around "winning", can never accept that he has lost, and is looking for anything possible to destroy the legitimacy of that defeat, at least in the eyes of his supporters. It would be enough to kick up a fuss and then go, when he must, grudgingly, in order to be able to sell the idea that the system was rigged against him so he didn't really lose, etc etc. Either that sets the platform for a 2024 campaign, or for a future pitch along the lines of "Your REAL President Speaks TV".

[birdie1971]

THECORBYLOON & Jim360

The tweets are mostly just repetitious claims that the election was rigged – there's no meat on the bone so to speak. This, of course, may be because there's nothing to the claims. But it could be because of the ongoing investigations. We simply don't know at this time.

I'd give it a week and if nothing further is announced by the Whitehouse on this matter, then I think it's safe to say that this scenario is fallacious. Time will inevitably tell.

[ichkeria]

Donald Trump on Twitter 2 hours back:
I WON THE ELECTION!
Twitter:
“Official sources called this election differently”

High comedy

[royfromaus]

Who wasn't amazed that Biden has harvested (cough) the most voted in history?

Perhaps the 'Vote early, vote often' as they say back where you're from Ich, is in play?

[ichkeria]

"Who wasn't amazed that Biden has harvested (cough) the most voted in history?
"

Well he probably has Donald Trump to thank for that :-) And hos own decency.
And Trump had the highest republican vote I believe.
And as Jim points out, gains in congress.
Credit to Trump for that.
Brickbats to the so-called "conspiracy" :-)
We've been here before: Trump's enquiry into how they fixed the popular vote in 2016 - quietly abandoned for lack of evidence

[Khandro]

ichi : lack of evidence only means lack of evidence, it doesn't prove anything

[ichkeria]

Yes it does: no evidence means no fraud.
It's not as if enough checks weren't carried out.
There was "no evidence of collusion", remember, with "Rasha" and that was good enough for you back then :-)

[THECORBYLOON]

"lack of evidence only means lack of evidence, it doesn't prove anything"

If you seek to nullify an election result, on what basis should that decision be based?

[jim360]

// We simply don't know at this time. //

Nah, we do know: Trump's a sore loser and is going to do anything he can to avoid looking like one to his base. I don't take seriously the suggestions that he'll actively try to remain in office beyond his term, but it's still distressing to see a sitting President continually undermine the process and disrupt the transition.

[Ken4155]

He's behaved like a spoilt brat throughout his Presidency. Stamping his feet, sticking out his bottom lip or bullying/sacking those who dare oppose him until he gets his own way. Why did anyone think he'd change tact after losing the election? America, land of the free? Land of the conspiracy theory, more like.

[Ellipsis]

You can see why he might not want to leave office ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54716550

[naomi24]

//it's still distressing to see a sitting President continually undermine the process and disrupt the transition. //

Sounds familiar... albeit not sitting presidents. ;o)

[jim360]

Ooh, do go on and tell us what you mean, Naomi :)

[naomi24]

Just a thought ….

[Peter Pedant]

// Sounds familiar... albeit not sitting presidents. ;o)//

then it is not familiar if there isnt a president saying it

and of course - Boris saying the conservative majority in the cmmon is made up of placemen and time-servers
is different to - er Naomi saying it ( again)

this exec order does not apply at persent

[Peter Pedant]

historically Nixon got near it apparently
but I was studying law in that year 1973
and I dont remember it at the time

- "all executive orders are narn-arperative"
I do remember - the executive orders are not right not wrong but non-operative. "My father is not a crook" - Nixon's daughter ...

and at the time commentatiors said this wd never happen in dear old blighty as someone wd knock on the door of No 10 and say £Prime minister - you dont have a najority"

[naomi24]

PP, //and of course - Boris saying the conservative majority in the cmmon is made up of placemen and time-servers
is different to - er Naomi saying it ( again) //

Naomi saying what again? And where's the first example? Or are you just rambling inanely again. Doubtless the latter.

[Peter Pedant]

// We've been here before: Trump's enquiry into how they fixed the popular vote in 2016 - quietly abandoned for lack of evidence//

remember they showed Russian interference -
but not collusion

I thought the lead for Hillary 's 200 000 emails came from Rasha
just - en passant - - strange how lock her up worked 2016 and failed completely in 2020

[ichkeria]

When Trump bawled out instructions in public to Rasha to “investigate” Hillary Clinton it was hardly the smartest move.
On the other hand would you do that if you were really colluding with them?
“Couldn’t collude with his own shadow” was an expression I always found attractive.

[Spicerack]

^
Whereas 'stop talking ***' was the most common.