[guest post by Dana]

This afternoon after being asked whether he will commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses:

“We’re going to have to see what happens, you know, but I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. The ballots are a disaster,” Trump told reporters at a White House briefing when asked if he would commit to making sure there is a peaceful power transition.

When pressed, Trump said there would be no need for a transition of power without mail-in ballots, suggesting he believes he would win the election without an expansion of mail-in voting during the pandemic.

“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful, there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”

The context makes it worse. pic.twitter.com/8QXda35jwN

— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) September 23, 2020

This guy.

Reportedly, the Trump camp is already hard at work prepping desperate contingency plans, if the situation makes them necessary:

According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires…

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.

Personally, I think Trump loves dropping these bombs of confusion and feeds off of the ensuing frustration and anger. This is Trump clapping his fat, little hands in glee knowing he is sowing the seeds of Trumpism. His loyal followers believe that the resulting chaos is evidence of his power play against the Swamp, or the Deep State, or Big Media, or whatever imaginary beast he conjures up as his latest enemy. His loyal base – the deluded – believe that his is a righteous cause, and his words and deeds are being nobly done on their behalf. Because that’s how necessary denial works.

I know this post deserves a deeper analysis, but honestly, there’s really nothing new to it. He is who he is, and the closer the election, the more this sort of stuff is just going to happen. I almost feel that by posting about it and being outraged, I’m feeding the insatiable attention whore, who devours negative attention as much as he does positive attention, as long as it’s about him. Anyway, here’s a more in-depth look at Trump’s statements on the election results.

By the way, the President of the United States is now literally begging me to vote for his opponent on November 3. And, in spite of my decision to vote for neither candidate, he is really moving the needle. Hard.

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

Let us know what questions you would like to see asked at the presidential debates. How would you like to see the questions worded, which issues take priority with you, and which issues do you think take priority with voters at large? Further, what do you hope to see the candidates reveal, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and what are you personally looking for from each candidate? Also, what pitfalls do you think the candidates need to avoid, and what are their most vulnerable points of attack that could be exploited by their opponent?

I know I’ve said it a thousand times before, but my God, from a nation overflowing with brilliant and capable individuals, it’s simply mind-boggling that we are stuck with one of these two goobers becoming the next President of the United States. This, the greatest nation on earth.

–Dana

If you follow politics closely, you may know that September 29, 2020 will be the date of the first Presidential debate between President Donald J. Trump and doddering old fool Joe Biden. Trump and his incompetent crew have succeeded in tamping down expectations for Biden so much that if Biden manages to string a sentence or two together in a coherent fashion, he will be judged the winner by acclamation. Nice job playing the expectations game, Trump campaign!

Anyway, Chris Wallace, the moderator of the first debate, has reportedly picked his topics for that debate. Those topics, supposedly, according to The Commission on Presidential Debates, are:

The Trump and Biden Records
The Supreme Court
Covid-19
The Economy
Race and Violence in our Cities
The Integrity of the Election

But here’s the thing. The Commission on Presidential Debates admits that the topics are “[s]ubject to possible changes because of news developments” — and I know a news development that is likely to happen that day … and as a reader of this blog, you’re about to know it too. Namely: that morning, Judge Emmet Sullivan will be holding a hearing on the Government’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn.

Mark your calendar: The judge in Michael Flynn's case scheduled the much-litigated-over hearing to consider DOJ's request to drop the prosecution against Flynn for 9/29 at 11am pic.twitter.com/pqYXyygpyp

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) September 8, 2020

One of three things is likely to happen: Judge Sullivan will deny the motion, he will grant it, or he could take it under submission. But any way you slice it, the hearing is likely to make news. Big news. Judge Sullivan is, in my view quite appropriately, palpably skeptical of the Government’s position, which strikes me as patently corrupt and plainly pretextual — an obvious attempt to paper over a cynical and baseless change of position for the purely political reason of running interference for a political crony who likely has dirt against Trump.

I have a feeling Judge Sullivan is going to voice his opinion loudly — probably loudly enough for Chris Wallace to hear, even over the noise of his pre-planned series of questions.

If Chris Wallace is as smart as I think he is, he will see this coming as clearly as I do. After all, he gets paid to do this stuff. I don’t.

But even if he doesn’t see it coming, I predict the news cycle is going to cause some re-jiggering of the topics to accommodate this critical issue, which goes straight to the heart of this president’s abuse of the rule of law.

You heard it here first: the Flynn case is making news on September 29, and it’s going to come up in the debate.

Always trust content from Patterico.