What if he won't go?

[Bluenose]

Given the statements made by himself implying that he won't go if he loses the election, I have been ruminating over what might happen.  I knew quite a few USN officers when I was in the RAN and they always struck me as being intelligent people with great integrity.  I would hope that this would apply to the other branches of the military.  So here is one thought about just what might happen if the idiot in chief refuses to leave when he is supposed to.

Firstly, I would hope that the officer who holds the nuclear codes would remove them and himself from the Whitehouse and present himself to the new President.  Then the Chiefs of Staff would inform the now ex-President that he is no longer the Commander in Chief.  If he still refuses to leave the Whitehouse then the MPs turn up and "escort" him from the building.  This would not be a military coup, rather it would be the military upholding their oath to defend their country and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Regrettably, I suspect that I am being overly optimistic that senior officers have not become politicised.

[Recusant]

They will need to give him a splendid Commander in Chief uniform with plenty of medals, gold braid, and gold epaulets with fringe.

[Dark Lightning]

The US Secret Service' presidential security detail will be assigned to the new president. If the former president (gad I hope the chump loses even worse this time!) refuses to vacate, they have the authority to remove him. The top Military official has already said that the military will not perform any removals. I'd like to him and his spawn walked out of the White House with nice, shiny stainless bracelets. But they'll get away with it all because money.

[No one]

Excise the tumor!

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Once the Chief Justice swears Biden in as President, the military, the Secret Service, the FBI and the CIA are his. I have confidence they will do their duty.  The best scenario is a clear victory on Nov. 3.  We will see.

[Anne D.]

Once the Chief Justice swears Biden in as President, the military, the Secret Service, the FBI and the CIA are his. I have confidence they will do their duty.  The best scenario is a clear victory on Nov. 3.  We will see.

Yes, re: best scenario. We need a clear landslide. And I hope it's already apparent from in-person voting on election night. I feel like we're living in a science-fiction novel.

[Dark Lightning]

Once the Chief Justice swears Biden in as President, the military, the Secret Service, the FBI and the CIA are his. I have confidence they will do their duty.  The best scenario is a clear victory on Nov. 3.  We will see.

The bitch (apologies to females of the canine persuasion, world-wide) may still refuse. It isn't going to work. I hope. This asshole (and I apologize for calling assholes out for being like the chump) isn't going to go out easily. I'd personally like to see him with his arms crossed (hand cuffed), sitting in that chair that used to be in the Oval Office, being carried out of the White House by law enforcement. If I thought that prayer would do any good...

[Dark Lightning]

Once the Chief Justice swears Biden in as President, the military, the Secret Service, the FBI and the CIA are his. I have confidence they will do their duty.  The best scenario is a clear victory on Nov. 3.  We will see.

Yes, re: best scenario. We need a clear landslide. And I hope it's already apparent from in-person voting on election night. I feel like we're living in a science-fiction novel.

I've only been saying that we're living in a bad SF movie since the Covid pandemic took root, but I'll have to agree with you about the chump's gain of the White House, at this point.

[Icarus]

Atlantic magazine has a take on this subject.  If you have a few minutes to read, then look at this article.  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Not a pleasant possibility......it looks more like a probability.  Have we  or will we become a third world nation with no respect for our past? Sure enough,we can disagree with one another but will we disagree so vehemently as to destroy our social and political fabric?

Halla-fucking-luleah!!  Trump did what he was predicted to do, this afternoon.  He nominated Amy Barrett to fill the SCOTUS seat.  Barrett is a far right winger who may help cause the demise of Roe v Wade, ACA, and a few more previous rulings that so many of us hold dear.     

[Dark Lightning]

I think that it was Kavanaugh who said that Roe Vs Wade is established law. One thing the judiciary strives for is not establishing precedents. I hope that it works that way, because Barrett could be on the SCOTUS for many decades.

[Recusant]

Bush v. Gore is established precedent. I think the US Supreme Court with a solid "conservative" majority will be happy to give the "ignore the results of the vote and choose the electors ourselves" scheme a go-ahead.

From a piece in Vanity Fair. Again, a site that throws up a paywall after a few articles, as does The Atlantic, which also has a story on the scheme.

In a thorough and deeply disconcerting piece about the constitutional crisis that may await us between November 3 and the inauguration in January, the Atlantic’s Barton Gellman reports that the Trump campaign has been discussing “contingency plans to bypass the election results and appoint local electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.” Citing the president’s baseless claims of fraud, Team Trump could ask GOP-controlled state governments to choose electors, completely ignoring an unfavorable or uncertain popular vote, state and national Republican sources told Gellman.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power,’” a Trump campaign legal adviser explained to the Atlantic. “‘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.’”

Does completely ignoring the will of the voters seem anti-democratic? Unconstitutional? Impossible? One would think. But as Gellman points out, however authoritarian this kind of end-around may seem, the Constitution doesn’t forbid such a move, and it’s something the Trump campaign could pull off. Indeed, state Republican leaders have already casually indicated that they’d be all too happy to enable this kind of power grab. “I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, chairman of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, one of the swing states on which the 2020 race could hinge, told Gellman. “It is one of the available legal options set forth in the constitution.”

[Link to full article at Vanity Fair.]

[billy rubin]

i believe that it is 12 december when the states must deliver their electoral votes.

whatever will happen will be clear before then. it may not finish before then, but the controversy will be layed out.

[Stevil]

The US Secret Service' presidential security detail will be assigned to the new president.

I'm quite fascinated by the USA political system. It's very different to the British and NZ system.
In NZ, we vote for a party. If during the term that party want to change their leader (Prime minister), they can do so. It is of course fraught with risk. IF a potential leader tries to usurp the incumbent and they don't succeed, then they themselves get thrown out of the party.
In USA it seems the party cannot simply change their leader. And it seems the people don't exactly vote for a party, they vote for a President. This single person has enormous power. They can sign off executive orders, they can give pardons and commute sentences, they can even commit crimes without threat of criminal indictment (it seems). They can fire anyone that opposes them or doesn't comply with their demands. They become lone ruler and their own party members become at their mercy, especially if that person remains hugely popular with their base.

Amazing amount of power, which can lead to a huge amount of corruption and distrust.

It seems to me that President Trump has removed many people loyal to the USA constitution, loyal to ethics and norms and has replaced them with people loyal to himself. It appears to me that he has taken over the Justice Department, with the appointment of Bill Barr who it seems has pledged loyalty to Trump and his political and personal wishes.

Trump is enabled by those around him, they allow him to coerce the Ukraine president for political favours, they allow him to take revenge on those that provide evidence or testify to facts that aren't in Trump's favour. They are even supporting him in voter suppression efforts, in his attempts to build up conspiracies on the legitimacy of the next USA presidential election.

USA was already polarised prior to Trump on key issues 2nd amendment, abortion, Christian rights to discriminate, evolution teachings in schools.  Right wing media it seems have been pushing hard to focus on these wedge items, building them up, with a rally cry to incite conservatives into a fervour. Fear it seems, has been a winning strategy to keep their people armed and keep them tuned into their favourite opinion or talk show. Trump has jumped on this opportunity and thrown gasoline onto the fire. It is now the political reality in USA. A president who constantly creates an us vs them narrative. Conservatives vs the extreme socialist liberals. A president who turns this into America vs the extreme socialist liberals. The liberals "hate" America, they want to destroy America, they have tried a coupe to overthrow Trump, they have fabricated a pandemic to destroy Trump's greatest ever American economy. ...and they are aggressively looking to cheat in the next election through widespread mail-in voter fraud.

The last election (2016) was crucial. The Republicans realised this, they set it up to be so by denying Obama the ability to confirm judges. They stole the lifetime Supreme Court Justice position away from Garland and now they are claiming their third SCOTUS. With Obama forced to remove the 2/3rds requirement for judicial nominations due to Republican's blocking all nominations, this was then expanded under Trump to the Supreme Court.  Now the SC can be stacked with far right, far left judges rather than trying to find judges that would be acceptable by members of both parties. The SC is now a political tool and a political goal, another wedge for political division. The Democrats and their supporters where caught with their pants down. They did not understand how crucial the 2016 election was. With Hilary conceeding (as she should have) she gave the keys to power to Donald Trump.

2020 - Trump never admits to mistakes, never admits to loses. It is outside of history and reason to consider that Trump would gracefully concede losing an election, it is outside of history and reason to consider that Trump will hand the keys of power over to anyone, let alone the Democratic party or Biden. Integrity and Grace are not part of Trump's makeup, he will always look to win at all costs.

How does the USA system cope with a presidential candidate that will not concede on the results of an election?


Dark Lightning's post assumes that there will be a "new president"
BUT for there to be a new president, the incumbent must first willingly and publicly concede.
WHAT if Trump "loses" but doesn't concede. (hint, he will never willingly concede). His thinking will likely be "I don't see why I would". Publicly he will attack the legitimacy of the election (he is already doing this). There will likely be shenanigans, enabled by Bill Barr and others to stop the counting of mail-in votes, there might even be the appointment of handpicked people to declare the outcome for certain states in liu of the votes of the people.

But regardless, as Trump had done throughout his life, he will not concede, he will leave no stone unturned, he will bend the rules, he will use the power he has at his disposal, he will drag things through the courts.
With so much contention it will be difficult for the Secret Service or the Military or anyone to take control and hand the white house over to a "new" president. Anyone attempting to do so will be seen as taking an undemocratic and aggressive approach to overthrow Trump. Trump's ample supporters, many of whom are enthusiastic about their second amendment rights will likely react.

I think it is very dangerous times in USA. It will be very interesting to see how this pans out.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I hope things are blown out of proportion, but this is my current thinking.

[Randy]

I'm scared of a right winged justice system voting Trump for another four years. But beyond that, Stevil brings up some interesting looks from the outside.

I've read somewhere just a few days ago although I don't remember where now but the article said that when the new president is sworn in, if the old one refuses to leave, the ones assigned to the new one will force the old one out something to that effect anyway.

We've seen the violence a mob can make, just recently, and some mobs held weapons. I suppose if the weapons carrying mob comes out the military would have to get involved to save the new president. I don't trust Homeland Security to be of any use.

We are possibly living in historical times.

[Stevil]

I've read somewhere just a few days ago although I don't remember where now but the article said that when the new president is sworn in, if the old one refuses to leave, the ones assigned to the new one will force the old one out something to that effect anyway.

But my point is, that you cannot swear in a new president if the old one hasn't conceded the results of the election.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
"Like other rituals, concessions developed a liturgy. The defeated candidate comes out first. He thanks supporters, declares that their cause will live on, and acknowledges that the other side has prevailed. The victor begins his own remarks by honoring the surrender.

Concessions employ a form of words that linguists call performative speech. The words do not describe or announce an act; the words themselves are the act. “The concession speech, then, is not merely a report of an election result or an admission of defeat,” the political scientist Paul E. Corcoran has written. “It is a constitutive enactment of the new president’s authority.”"

...
"We have no precedent or procedure to end this election if Biden seems to carry the Electoral College but Trump refuses to concede. We will have to invent one."