Donald Trump mocks the audit recount in Wisconsin, calling it a "scam." Campaign manager Kelly Ann Conway says, "What a pack of sore losers."
 |
| NFL refs check he replay tape |
The election results in Wisconsin apparently had some discrepancies when first announced, at least according to some computer experts. Apparently the vote in counties using voting machines were some 7% lower than were counties that used optical scanners, which leave a paper trail. The amount of votes involved--30,000--is greater than the margin of Trump's victory. It looked suspicious to people who were looking for suspicious evidence of computer hacking.
 |
| From Fox News |
Everyone agrees that computer hacking was in fact involved in the election. The Clinton campaign was hacked by somebody and the internal emails were turned over to Wikileaks with the stated intent of sabotaging Hillary Clinton's campaign. It was presumably done by Russia but that is not confirmed. Someone did it. Everyone knows about it. Hillary condemned it; Trump used the information and said its source was not important, only its content. So more computer hacks are not inconceivable, though there is no public evidence of it on voting machines--yet.
So some people want to check it out and lots of people are willing to pony up to pay for the audit.
So some people want to check it out and lots of people are willing to pony up to pay for the audit.
The Stein campaign had standing to challenge the election results and did so. It is what anyone would do under the circumstances.
 |
| From Breitbart, the web voice of the campaign |
Trump and his campaign are blasting it, acting amazed and indignant that someone would question the accuracy of the election results and therefore the legitimacy of his presidency. Trump is choosing to handle the re-count that way.
He had alternatives.
He had alternatives.
He could have said that the vote is sacred and he is dedicated to a fair and honest election, that he is dedicated to respect for the will of the people and votes should be counted accurately. He could say that he has nothing to fear from an honest count, so go ahead and audit, that he is confident he won the election and that the good people who lead the government of Wisconsin (Republicans, top to bottom) did their job well.
He is not doing that. He is mocking Stein and Clinton, calling the audit a "scam". The behavior positions Trump in the manner I used yesterday to characterize his campaign: a professional wrestling performance. He is a fighter for himself, looking for personal advantage. He could have been the serene president, a spokesman for the integrity of elections. Instead, he belittles the audit, arguing to preserve his win, not the public interest in the accurate outcome.
President play a head-of-state role as well as a partisan role. They are expected to represent the general interest rather than a private interest. Within the hard competition of sporting events the coaches are expected to respect the fairness of the game. The refs look at the replay tape. Did his knee touch the ground before he crossed the goal line, or after? It isn't ridiculous or a scam to look, even if the result might reverse a call on he field--because the integrity of the game requires that the rules be followed. Better--for the public-- that the game be fair than that the game be won based on an acknowledged and fixable error that the refs refuse to fix. Sometimes the personal and public interests coincide, sometimes they do not. Trump is condemning the audit.
Possibly as the installed head of state this behavior will change, but this is not a promising sign.
3 comments:
We may lament losing an election in which expansion of civil rights and women's rights were/are part of the package. We did see that the election of 1859 brought the dissolution of the Whig party, failure of women's suffrage at the expense of promoting abolition, which began to progress following our bloodiest war to date. What remains to be seen is if pro wrestling crowd manipulation translates into governance.
Hmmm, if I remember correctly, there was a count of 17 intelligence "services" and agencies that concluded the russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic Party, the Clinton Campaign, et al. All that material was given to wikileaks which posted it. Is my memory incorrect?
I don't remember the number, Mike, but you are absolutely right that it is the overwhelming consensus of security experts that the hacking was done by the Russians, that they turned it over to Wikileaks, and that their intent--as implied by their behavior--was to injure Hillary. They perceived Hillary as less favorable to Russian interests than Trump.
Post a Comment