White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany only had this exchange with a part of the media about President Trump's continuing attacks on the validity of vote-by-mail:
REPORTER: Why is the president stating if he does not win this electionthen he won't accept the results unless he or she wins?
McENANY: The president has always said he'll see what happens and make a decision in the wake.
McEnany went on to assert that Trump wants"a free election, even a fair election," notice that extensive vote-by-mail could undermine public confidence in the results, and insist that this can be Trump's actual concern. McEnany somehow managed to make all those claims without doubling over in paroxysms of bliss.
This exchange on Wednesday day came after another one where a reporter asked McEnany about Trump's recent claim that"the only way we are going to lose this election is if the election is rigged."
That reporter asked:"Does the president believe there is any circumstance where he can get rid of the election fairly?" McEnany declined to answer, mumbling some nonsense about voter fraud and Trump's towering popularity.
In danger of sounding overly earnest, can we just point out that this is very heinous coming out of the White House press secretary at an official briefing of the White House press corps?
Trump occasionally tweets this sort of thing in 5 a.m. from within the White House while watching Fox News, and at times states it to reporters on the White House grounds. Those examples are terrible, to be sure.But they are off-the-cuff. In this case, a senior member of the government delivered this message very intentionally, in obviously scripted opinions, to the entire body of journalists that are theoretically on-site from the People's House so as to hold the powerful to account on behalf of the American people -- the folks whose house it's supposed to be.
But as Bookbinder mentioned, in this case, the White House itself has been used to project such an"anti-democratic" message, at a quasi-official way.
"It's the People's House," Bookbinder said. "Saying there that you may not respect the effect of the election does seem especially galling."
Really, it's basically like saying: We just might not leave, regardless of what the voters say.
"It's kind of saying,'We're here, and we're not going anywhere,''' Bookbinder said. "That's the kind of thing we see in countries where you will find coups. It's not the type of conversation we've got in the United States."
It is often pointed out that we don't know how severe Trump is all about declaring the election illegitimate when he loses -- he is just trolling the liberal liberal press! -- or if Trump will have difficulty getting away with saying that if he does shed. That sort of claim is of a piece with a bigger trend to assert that Trump seldom ends up accomplishing his authoritarian designs.
All that is problematic at best. As noted above, Trump is publicly announcing right now that the result can't be valid if he doesn't win. He's said email balloting, which will be employed amid pandemic conditions, will inevitably indicate a rigged outcome. He's not bothered to hide his intention to dismiss ballots arriving after Election Day as illegitimate.
Whatever Trump's seriousness about carrying this through -- and whatever sensible success he might be likely to have if he tries -- it sends a horrible message for his supporters, i.e., that they shouldn't see our elections as effective at delivering a reasonable or logical result in which they come out on the losing side.
To get this delivered officially from the White House itself in such a manner just underscores the absolute contempt for our political system that Trump and his top officials shield.
Indeed, this becomes much worse when you believe that Trump plans to deliver his speech accepting the GOP nomination in the GOP conference from the White House lawn.
This may or may not be legal: Even when the president is exempt in the Hatch Act, some experts say members of the government planning the address might be legally liable. But this, also, is somewhat beside the point: Legalities aside, what will once again be on display here is your administration's utter contempt for our governmental strategy.
"The function of the Hatch Act is that you can not use the levers of the federal government to keep yourself in power," Bookbinder informed me. "To use the White House to market your reelection, and to utilize the White House to indicate you might not leave even in the event you lose, is about as serious an depriving of the democratic ideals of this nation since you are able to come up with."
For Trump, this implies just another day ending in"Y." But the rest of us shouldn't treat it like that.
REPORTER: Why is the president stating if he does not win this electionthen he won't accept the results unless he or she wins?
McENANY: The president has always said he'll see what happens and make a decision in the wake.
McEnany went on to assert that Trump wants"a free election, even a fair election," notice that extensive vote-by-mail could undermine public confidence in the results, and insist that this can be Trump's actual concern. McEnany somehow managed to make all those claims without doubling over in paroxysms of bliss.
This exchange on Wednesday day came after another one where a reporter asked McEnany about Trump's recent claim that"the only way we are going to lose this election is if the election is rigged."
That reporter asked:"Does the president believe there is any circumstance where he can get rid of the election fairly?" McEnany declined to answer, mumbling some nonsense about voter fraud and Trump's towering popularity.
In danger of sounding overly earnest, can we just point out that this is very heinous coming out of the White House press secretary at an official briefing of the White House press corps?
Trump occasionally tweets this sort of thing in 5 a.m. from within the White House while watching Fox News, and at times states it to reporters on the White House grounds. Those examples are terrible, to be sure.But they are off-the-cuff. In this case, a senior member of the government delivered this message very intentionally, in obviously scripted opinions, to the entire body of journalists that are theoretically on-site from the People's House so as to hold the powerful to account on behalf of the American people -- the folks whose house it's supposed to be.
But as Bookbinder mentioned, in this case, the White House itself has been used to project such an"anti-democratic" message, at a quasi-official way.
"It's the People's House," Bookbinder said. "Saying there that you may not respect the effect of the election does seem especially galling."
Really, it's basically like saying: We just might not leave, regardless of what the voters say.
"It's kind of saying,'We're here, and we're not going anywhere,''' Bookbinder said. "That's the kind of thing we see in countries where you will find coups. It's not the type of conversation we've got in the United States."
It is often pointed out that we don't know how severe Trump is all about declaring the election illegitimate when he loses -- he is just trolling the liberal liberal press! -- or if Trump will have difficulty getting away with saying that if he does shed. That sort of claim is of a piece with a bigger trend to assert that Trump seldom ends up accomplishing his authoritarian designs.
All that is problematic at best. As noted above, Trump is publicly announcing right now that the result can't be valid if he doesn't win. He's said email balloting, which will be employed amid pandemic conditions, will inevitably indicate a rigged outcome. He's not bothered to hide his intention to dismiss ballots arriving after Election Day as illegitimate.
Whatever Trump's seriousness about carrying this through -- and whatever sensible success he might be likely to have if he tries -- it sends a horrible message for his supporters, i.e., that they shouldn't see our elections as effective at delivering a reasonable or logical result in which they come out on the losing side.
To get this delivered officially from the White House itself in such a manner just underscores the absolute contempt for our political system that Trump and his top officials shield.
Indeed, this becomes much worse when you believe that Trump plans to deliver his speech accepting the GOP nomination in the GOP conference from the White House lawn.
This may or may not be legal: Even when the president is exempt in the Hatch Act, some experts say members of the government planning the address might be legally liable. But this, also, is somewhat beside the point: Legalities aside, what will once again be on display here is your administration's utter contempt for our governmental strategy.
"The function of the Hatch Act is that you can not use the levers of the federal government to keep yourself in power," Bookbinder informed me. "To use the White House to market your reelection, and to utilize the White House to indicate you might not leave even in the event you lose, is about as serious an depriving of the democratic ideals of this nation since you are able to come up with."
For Trump, this implies just another day ending in"Y." But the rest of us shouldn't treat it like that.