Connect with us

Politics

Press Secretary Falsely Claims Trump Wasn’t Given an “Orderly Transition of Power”

Published

on

  • Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany falsely claimed that President Donald Trump was not given “an orderly transition of power” after he won the 2016 election. 
  • In reality, Hillary Clinton conceded defeat the day after the election, and President Obama Obama met with Trump to start work on the transition two days after. Trump himself even thanked Obama for making the transfer peaceful and smooth in his inauguration speech.
  • By contrast, Trump has launched an unprecedented effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. He’s directed key members of his administration to block the transition process and filed dozens of lawsuits aimed at overturning election results, despite the fact that a growing number of Republicans have encouraged him to start the transition process.

Kayleigh McEnany’s Claims About Trump Transition

Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany falsely claimed on Saturday that President Donald Trump was not given “an orderly transition of power.”

Her comments came during her first press briefing since the election was called for former Vice President Joe Biden, where she was asked about Trump’s refusal to concede and start the transition process.

“While, in 2016, President Trump became the duly elected President, many sought to undermine him, discredit him, delegitimize him, and deny his victory,” she continued. “There were no calls for unity; there were no calls for healing.”

“So while every legal vote is counted, let us not forget the inexcusable transition, or lack thereof, that President Trump had to endure in 2016 and four years into his presidency.”

McEnany’s claims are flatly wrong for a number of reasons. Trump’s opponent in the 2016 election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, conceded the morning of Nov. 9, the day after the election.

“Donald Trump is going to be our president,” Clinton said in her concession speech. “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”

Help From Obama

Later that same day, then-President Barack Obama also acknowledged Trump’s win and emphasized the importance of a smooth transition process. The day after that — less than 48 hours after the election had been called for Trump — the president-elect went to the White House to meet with Obama and start the transition process.

“As I said last night, my number one priority in the coming two months is to try to facilitate a transition that ensures our president-elect is successful,” Obama told reporters while sitting beside Trump.

“We want to make sure that they feel welcome as they prepare to make this transition, and most of all, I want to emphasize to you, Mr. President-elect, that we now are gunna wanna do everything we can to help you succeed,” he continued. “Because if we succeed, then the country succeeds.” 

In fact, Trump himself even thanked Obama for helping to ensure the peaceful transfer of power while speaking at his inauguration.

“Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition,” he said. “They have been magnificent. Thank you.” 

Notably, as the Associated Press pointed out, Trump’s transition was indeed chaotic, but that was almost entirely due to Trump’s own doing. While the Trump transition team did receive standard cooperation during the transfer, they largely ignored advice and offers of help from Obama staffers.

Beyond that, Trump also fired the head of his transition, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and scrapped months of transition planning he had prepared over a feud between Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Christie, who in his previous role as a U.S. Attorney had put Kushner’s father in jail for tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions.

Trump’s Tactics

McEnany’s blatantly false assertion appears to be an attempt to downplay and justify the unprecedented actions Trump has taken to block Biden from assuming the presidency during a pandemic, even as numerous experts warn that if the president does not start sharing COVID data with the president-elect and his transition team, cost countless lives could be lost.

In addition to Trump’s own refusal to concede, he has also directed those in his administration to play ball as well.

Most significantly, Emily Murphy, the head of the General Services Administration (GSA) — the agency tasked with handing hand transition resources off to Biden’s transition team — has refused to sign off on the process.

By contrast, the GSA under the Obama Administration gave Trump’s transition team the reins the day after the 2016 election. 

Trump and his allies have also filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to overrule the will of American voters in key swing states. According to reports, the campaign has now either lost or withdrawn over 30 of those suits.

As their legal strategy starts to fall apart, team Trump has taken a new direction: getting Republican-controlled legislatures in states that gave the popular vote to Biden to basically overrule the will of the people by choosing a pro-Trump slate of electors to send to the electoral college.

Usually, the party of whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a given state gets to designate electors who will go to the Electoral College in December to cast the state’s electoral votes for the chosen candidate. 

However, a state legislature could hypothetically claim that the results of the popular invalid and invoke their constitutional right to step in and choose a slate of electors they believe more accurately reflects the election results of their state.

Many believe that such a move would be illegal or at the very least incredibly undemocratic as it would amount to nothing more than a full-blown attempt to steal the election and defy the will of voters.

But Trump and his cronies have been pushing Republican legislators in states he lost narrowly to take this route. On Thursday, the president gathered state legislators from Michigan at the White House to pressure them to either send a slate of his electors to the Electoral College or not certify the election results at all.

The legislators appeared to deny that they would go against the will of their people because of baseless claims of fraud.

“We have not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan and, as legislative leaders, we will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan’s electors, just as we have said throughout this election,” they said in a statement. 

Republicans Urge Trump to Start Transition

While some of Trump’s allies have continued to support the president’s tactic and spread his baseless claims and conspiracy theories about election fraud, other top Republicans lawmakers have been encouraging Trump to start the transition process.

On Saturday a federal judge in Pennsylvania rejected yet another lawsuit brought by the Trump campaign, effectively ending the president’s only attempt to challenge statewide results. After that ruling, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) called on Trump to accept that he had lost and start the transition process. 

“With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania,” Toomey said in a statement, before going on to note that Trump’s loss in his follows “a series of procedural losses for President Trump’s campaign.”

On Sunday, Senators Kevin Cramer (R-Nd.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak.) also followed suit.

“President Trump has had the opportunity to litigate his claims, and the courts have thus far found them without merit,” Murkowski said. “A pressure campaign on state legislators to influence the electoral outcome is not only unprecedented but inconsistent with our democratic process. It is time to begin the full and formal transition process.”

Those remarks were also echoed by Christie, who, despite being removed from Trump’s 2016 transition team, has maintained a close relationship with the president and his staff. While speaking to ABC News Sunday, the former governor called the conduct of Trump’s legal team “a national embarrassment.”

“Listen, I have been a supporter of the President’s. I voted for him twice, but elections have consequences, and we cannot continue to act as if something happened here that didn’t happen,” he said. 

“If you are unwilling to come forward and present the evidence, it must mean the evidence doesn’t exist,” Christie continued. “The country is what has to matter the most. As much as I’m a strong Republican and I love my party, it’s the country that has to come first.” 

See what others are saying: (The Associated Press) (NPR) (The New York Times)

Politics

Sen. Baldwin Estimates “13 or 14 Republicans” Will Vote for Respect for Marriage Act

Published

on

The senator told Rogue Rocket she believes the legislation will pass “with a broad bipartisan majority.”


Respect for Marriage Act

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wi.) told Rogue Rocket that she believes as many as “13 or 14” Republican senators will vote on a bill to codify protections for gay and interracial marriage.

The legislation, dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act, was proposed in response to concerns about the future of marriage equality in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Not only did Roe’s reversal undermine the right to privacy and thus the foundation of the precedents that protected essential rights, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called for the court to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that established same-sex marriage.

“The first thing [the bill] does is it repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which sets up a federal definition of non-recognition of marriages between two people of the same sex, and so that would no longer be the law of the land,” Baldwin explained.

“And secondly, it says that the federal government, through a constitutional provision called ‘full faith and credit,’ will give full faith and credit to the acts of states,” she continued. “So if you’re legally married in a state that solemnized same-sex marriages, the federal government will recognize that marriage as well as other states being required to respect that marriage.” 

In July, the House passed legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support from 47 Republicans, which is nearly a quarter of the caucus. The proposal also appears to be broadly backed by the public. Recent polls show that 70% of Americans support gay marriage.

Ongoing Battle

Republican senators, however, have been hesitant to vote for the bill ahead of the midterm elections, as Democratic leadership had intended. As a result, the senators leading the charge — including Sen. Baldwin — asked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to push a vote until after the midterms, and he consented.

Sen. Baldwin said many GOP senators wanted a clarification that the bill would protect religious liberties and not create a new mandate requiring religious institutions to respect gay or interracial marriage.

She noted that there has been clarifying language put in the legislation to ensure that it just pertains to state recognition of marriage.

“I think the other issue that was being raised — that only time will help us settle — is an accusation that this was going to be a push before the midterm elections,” she added. “And so it was a political act rather than something that we’re doing because we’re very serious about passing this into law and very serious about protecting people’s rights.”

“So it seems pretty clear to me that we gained greater support after the midterms than we had prior to the midterms,”  Baldwin continued. “I do believe we’re going to pass it. I do believe that we’re going to pass it with a broad bipartisan majority.

Citing the clarifying language added to the bill, the senator said she thinks “there will be some additional momentum because of the time we’ve taken with this.”

 “I feel like we were told in pretty clear terms that we would have some people support only if the vote came after the midterms,” she added.

When asked how many Republicans she believes will ultimately vote in favor of the bill, Baldwin responded: “If I were if I were to give you my best-educated guess, I think we’ll have either 13 or 14 Republicans join us.” 

“I’m pushing to have this vote as close to the midterms after they pass as possible. So maybe in mid-November, […] plenty of time before the end of the year and before the membership actually changes,” she noted. “But also, we need to appeal to that compassionate side of some of my Republican colleagues who, you know, this is about a vote that you’re going to take that may well affect a niece and nephew, a cousin, a dear friend.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The Hill) (CNN)

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low

Published

on

The most volatile cases the court will consider involve affirmative action, voting rights, elections, and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community.


High Court to Hear Numerous Controversial Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially kicked off a new term that will be marked by a number of very contentious cases.

The justices, led by a conservative super-majority, will hear many matters that have enormous implications for the American people.

The first case the court will hear this term involves a major environmental dispute that will determine the scope of government authority under the Clean Water Act — a decision that could have a massive impact on U.S. water quality at a time when water crises’ have been heightened by climate change.

The case also comes amid increasing concerns about federal inaction regarding climate change, especially after the Supreme Court significantly limited the government’s power to act in this area at the end of its last term.

Cases Involving Race

Several of the most anticipated decisions also center around race, including a pair of cases that challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

For over four decades, the high court has repeatedly upheld that race can be a factor in college admissions to ensure a more equitable student body. Despite the fact that multiple challenges have been struck down in the past, the court’s conservative super majority could very well undo 40 years of precedent and undermine essential protections.

The high court will decide a legal battle that could significantly damage key voting protections for minorities set forth under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case in question stems from a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map for violating a provision in the VRA prohibiting voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.

Alabama had drawn its map so only one of its seven congressional districts was majority Black, despite the fact that nearly one in every three voting-age residents in the state are Black. 

States’ Power Over Elections 

Also on the topic of gerrymandering and elections, the justices will hear a case that could have a profound impact on the very nature of American democracy. The matter centers around a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the Republican-drawn congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal gerrymander that violated the state’s Constitution.

The North Carolina GOP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures almost total control over how federal elections are carried out in their state under a theory called the independent state legislature doctrine.

“That argument, in its most extreme form, would mean that [sic] no state court and no state agency could interfere with the state legislature’s version of election rules, regardless of the rules set down in the state constitution,” NPR explained.

In other words, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Republicans, they would essentially be giving state legislatures unchecked power over how voting maps are designed and elections are administered.

LGBTQ+ Rights

Another notable decision the justices will make could have huge implications for the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights more broadly. That matter involved a web designer in Colorado named Lori Smith who refused to design websites for same-sex couples because she believed it violates her right to religious freedoms.

That belief, however, goes against a Colorado nondiscrimination law that bans businesses that serve the public from denying their services to customers based on sexual orientation or identity.

As a result, Smith argues that the Colorado law violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. If the high court rules in her favor, it would undermine protections for the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and likely other states with similar laws.

Experts also say such a ruling could go far beyond that. As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran told NPR, “if Smith is correct that there’s a free speech right to selectively choose her customers based on the messages she wants to endorse,” the Colorado law would also allow white supremacists to deny services to people of color because that “would be a message of endorsement.”

Record-Low Approval Rating

The court’s high-stakes docket also comes at a time when its reputation has been marred by questions of legitimacy.

A new Gallup poll published last week found that the Supreme Court’s approval rating has sunk to a record low. Specifically, less than half of Americans said they have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch — a 20% drop from just two years ago.

Beyond that, a record number of people also now say that the court is too conservative. Experts argue that these numbers are massively consequential, especially as the U.S. heads into yet another highly-contentious court term.

“The Supreme Court is at an important moment,” Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs told The Hill

“Trust in the institutions has vastly diminished, certainly among Democrats, and many have a close eye on how they rule on other vital matters. If decisions seem to keep coming from a very pointed political direction, frustration and calls for reform will only mount.”

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNN) (The Wall Street Journal)

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event

Published

on

The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.


“Where’s Jackie?” 

Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.

The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.

The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.” 

The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.

“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.

“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”

The Age Maximum Question

Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.

Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.

While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.

These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.

There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.

Source: Business Insider

What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.

As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.

Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.

However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)

Continue Reading