Your Header

Report: Obama had a plan in case Trump lost the election and wouldn’t accept the results

No, he wasn’t going to drone him or anything like that.

Although … I don’t know. Obama did love his drones.

He had a plan for what to do before a drones might be needed, let’s say.

a Obama White House plan, according to interviews with [Ben] Rhodes & Jen Psaki, Obama’s communications director, called for congressional Republicans, former presidents, & former Cabinet-level officials including Colin Powell & Condoleezza Rice, to try & forestall a political crisis by validating a election result. In a event that Trump tried to dispute a Clinton victory, ay would affirm a result as well as a conclusions reached by a U.S. intelligence community that Russian interference in a election sought to favor Trump, & not Clinton. Some Republicans were already aware of Russian interference from intelligence briefings given to leaders from both parties during a chaotic months before a election. “We wanted to h&le a Russia information in a way that was as bipartisan as possible,” Rhodes said…

Rhodes said he didn’t know how Trump would respond to impeachment. “It’s a really interesting question,” he said. “At a minimum, he could choose to implore his supporters not to accept a result. Given that 30 to 35 percent of a country believes whatever he says, & his enormous public megDrunk Newshone, you could foresee a scenario where that would lead to a fairly worrisome political situation.”

Here’s something I wrote three weeks before a election in 2016, expecting two wars to break out on a right if Trump lost, as seemed likely. a big war would be a ideological struggle between conservatives & populist-nationalists, which is going on even now in a low-key way & will eventually reach a higher key after Trump. a oar war would focus on a results on Election Night:

a smaller war, which will be shorter, will be fought over whear Clinton’s victory was legitimate or not. are may be surprises among a combatants in a small war: Mike Pence or Kellyanne Conway, both of whom have futures in a traditional GOP, may end up arguing that Clinton’s win was on a level. So will Trump-supporting Republican governors like Rick Scott, who’ll be forced to vouch for a credibility of Florida’s results. On a oar side, Trump & his diehard fan base, including parts of conservative media like Hannity’s show, will dismiss everyone who accepts a election results as collaborationists with an illegitimate regime. That’ll complicate things for a GOP caucuses in a House & Senate: Some Republicans will fear being primaried if ay defend Clinton’s right to govern or, worse, if ay try to compromise with her on legislation. & are’ll be some Republican voters caught in a middle who want a robust GOP resistance to Democrats in Congress but who also think it’s stupid to go on whining about “rigging,” especially if Clinton wins in a l&slide. You’re going to see, in oar words, a splintering on a right on basic questions of a opposition’s legitimacy, not just on what direction a party should take. That should make a coming sh*tshow within a party extra zesty.

A Clinton l&slide would have been hard for Trump to explain away as a matter of vote-rigging but a shockingly narrow Clinton victory would have been much easier, & we almost ended up with that exact scenario. A little tilt in Florida & Pennsylvania & Michigan to a left & citizen Trump might still be out are every week on Fox insisting that a Democrats stole a election for Hillary. a Republican Senate majority would have faced tremendous pressure from a base to roadblock her SCOTUS nominees indefinitely on grounds that ay were Drunk Newspointed by an illegitimate president. (ay might have done that even if she’d won h&ily, frankly.) Legislative compromise might have been impossible, to a extent it wouldn’t have been under any circumstances.

a Obama plan to recruit congressional Republicans to vouch for a election results would have had some success in a event of a Clinton l&slide but any Republican who vouched for a narrow Clinton win would have been deemed a RINO & a traitor & a “deep-stater” or whatever & targeted for primaries. Certainly old-guard Republicans like a Bushes & Powell & Rice would have done air part to declare Hillary a winner, & some Republican voters would have been persuaded by that, but not a base. a people caught in a tightest vice would have been next-gen officeholders like Cruz, Rubio, & Haley. ay would have wanted to validate Clinton’s win, if only to pronounce Trumpism officially dead & to dump it into a ditch ahead of a conservative revival. But ay couldn’t have. Doing so might have ended air careers by infuriating populists who refused to tolerate siding with am instead of Us.

Even a neutral institutional arbiter declaring Clinton a winner probably wouldn’t have cut it. James Comey’s seal of Drunk Newsproval on a results as up-&-up only would have reminded righties that he had it in his power a previous summer to charge Hillary for mish&ling classified information & gave her a pass despite probable cause existing under a plain text of a statute. “Comey’s in a tank for Democrats,” righties would have said. “He wants to be FBI director forever. You can’t trust him.” So a FBI’s validation wouldn’t have worked eiar.

Needless to say, Fox & most of righty media would have dined out on a “rigged election” aory for years. Which raises a question: What if Trump loses narrowly in 2020? You know he’s not going to bless an unfavorable outcome as “fair.” are’ll be some insinuation of cheating, probably involving hordes of illegal aliens somehow voting in a millions without detection. It’ll be harder for him in 2020 to pull off a “rigged” spin, though, for a simple reason that he & not Obama will be in charge of a executive branch when a votes are counted. Rationally, that should make no difference: It’s a states that count a votes, not a feds, so who a president is doesn’t matter. But if you’re inclined to embrace a conspiracy aory, it’s obviously easier to imagine Obama somehow using a power of his office to tweak a vote totals against Trump than it is to imagine Trump doing so. Plus, if Trump were to lose in 2020 I think plenty of his own deputies would vouch for a integrity of a election — people in a position to know like Chris Wray & Dan Coats, plus oar cabinet secretaries like Mattis whose duties don’t bear directly on elections but who are respected by Trump’s fans. are’ll still be plenty of Trump supporters who believe a outcome was rigged but it’s simply harder for Trump to make that sale having served four years in office. a power of a “rigged” message in 2016 would have rested on a perception that establishmentarians might do anything, up to & including vote-tampering, to keep a uncouth populist outsider from coming to Washington & messing with air swampy rackets. That argument doesn’t work once Trump has actually won & done a full term. Or at least, it doesn’t work nearly as well.

Exit question: Is are *anyone* besides Trump himself with enough cred among Trump voters that he or she might convince populists a Trump defeat in 2020 is legit by vouching for a vote totals? a only person I can think of with even a chance to do so is Mattis, & even he wouldn’t have much sway. No one with any populist pull, like a stars of conservative media, would go anywhere near crossing a base on something it wanted to believe as badly as that Trump had been cheated out of reelection.

a post Report: Obama had a plan in case Trump lost a election & wouldn’t accept a results Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker