Tim Scott refuses to say whether he'll accept the results of the 2024 election

[Del Tachi]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

Democrats have not accepted a Republican victory since 1988.  Democrats objected to the electoral college results in 2000, 2004 and 2016 lol   

[Del Tachi]

It would have been perfectly reasonable to say something like, "As long as the elections are free and fair, of course I'll accept them". That would have given him plenty of room to fall back to the next version of the GOP's "Big Lie". But instead we get this:

Kristen Welker: “Will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024?

Tim Scott: “At the end of the day, the 47th president of the will be Donald Trump”

Welker's question is like asking a football team/defense attorney what they'll do if they lose.  When engaged in a competition of wits, you don't acknowledge the possibility of losing until it's already been handed to you.  Anything else smacks of defeatism, which is not a very good trait to have as a presidential candidate.  Campaigns in the past have given similar non-answers to these types of questions.

By being so on the nose about it, Scott is also appealing to Trump's braggadocio. He's trying to keep himself ahead in the veepstakes. 

[Del Tachi]

"Moderate Republican"

Who thinks of Scott as moderate?
He is a better fit for his state than Trump and can appeal better to the "swing voters / moderates" of his state (which includes rigth leaning blacks that don´t trust much the republicans) but that doesn´t make him a moderate.

The mainstream media - and not just in the US - frequently comes up with this talking point anyone not 100% in Trump's cult is somehow a "moderate" or "sane Republican", even when they largely support his policies and never speak out against Trump's worst instincts. The same was true with regard to DeSantis and even in 2016, when they described Rubio as a moderate. Even though the term is just vague and not clearly defined, I'd only consider Charlie Baker types as actual moderates. Maybe a Spencer Cox or Joe Lombardo might fit the bill to a degree, but Scott, Haley, Rubio or DeSantis clearly aren't. It's like saying Tammy Baldwin is a moderate Democrat.

The "mainstream media" (read: liberals) do this because everything is always in service to painting their current opposition, Trump at this moment, as unseriously as possible.  Elevating the sensibility of other Republicans can only makes Trump look worse.  This has the effect of somehow making every national GOP politician worse than the last; the liberal media played a similar game with McCain and Romney before it became useful to rehab them as a way to bring down Trump.

No one thinks Tim Scott is a moderate.  He has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate!  What you're trying to allude to is that Scott is a member of the establishment - he's well-liked by his Senate GOP colleagues and doesn't tend to rock the boat.  That's why he's likely Trump's #1 choice. 

[Del Tachi]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

Democrats have not accepted a Republican victory since 1988.  Democrats objected to the electoral college results in 2000, 2004 and 2016 lol   

Token virtue-signaling is not the same thing as a violent coup attempt. Be serious.

Neither Trump's actions to dispute the election results nor the Capitol riot were "violent coup attempts."  Get a life.

And I guess the "token virtue signaling" includes Democrats objecting to the results in Congress, boycotting Trump's inauguration, organizing the largest protests against a president in U.S. history (almost 200 people were indicted on Federal charges resulting from the "DisruptJ20" protests), and pushing a fake "Russian collusion" conspiracy that was later summarily dispelled as fiction? 

[Del Tachi]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

Democrats have not accepted a Republican victory since 1988.  Democrats objected to the electoral college results in 2000, 2004 and 2016 lol   

One out of three, and no riots occurred. Do better

And (arguably more importantly) there were no slates of fake electors from Democrats trying to steal the election the day of Congressional certification.

For all of 2021 and into 2022, the subject of the DOJ's investigation was the Capitol riot itself and not the two-months Trump spent trying to dispute the election beforehand.  Trump's lobbying of state legislators, organizing of "alternate" elector slates in key states, and pressuring of Mike Pence to accept them all happened in plain sight and were reported by journalists in real time.  They were not a criminal conspiracy.   

And the DOJ knew it.  Officials at the Justice Department initially shot down several early 2021 proposals to probe Trump and his close allies, per the Washington Post. What changed in 2022 was growing desperation by the Biden administration and partisan investigators at the DOJ to hamstring Trump as a political opponent. They have relied on unprecedented theories of criminality to make their case.

[Del Tachi]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

Democrats have not accepted a Republican victory since 1988.  Democrats objected to the electoral college results in 2000, 2004 and 2016 lol   

One out of three, and no riots occurred. Do better

And (arguably more importantly) there were no slates of fake electors from Democrats trying to steal the election the day of Congressional certification.

For all of 2021 and into 2022, the subject of the DOJ's investigation was the Capitol riot itself and not the two-months Trump spent trying to dispute the election beforehand. Trump's lobbying of state legislators, organizing of "alternate" elector slates in key states, and pressuring of Mike Pence to accept them all happened in plain sight and were reported by journalists in real time.  They were not a criminal conspiracy.   

And the DOJ knew it.  Officials at the Justice Department initially shot down several early 2021 proposals to probe Trump and his close allies, per the Washington Post. What changed in 2022 was growing desperation by the Biden administration and partisan investigators at the DOJ to hamstring Trump as a political opponent. They have relied on unprecedented theories of criminality to make their case.

You seem to be under the impression that trying to steal an election by way false slates of electors is not a crime if one does it in broad daylight. This is incorrect. Also, you are factually incorrect that the media and therefore the rest of us knew everything that was going at the time. We did not know, for example, that some young staffer physically flew Wisconsin's false electoral vote paperwork to DC and was instructed to give them to Ken Chesebro, who was then to give them to Ron Johnson, who was then to give them Mike Pence, with the intent of the Vice President substituting trump's wishes in place of the Wisconsin electorate.

The fact the Biden's DoJ initially resisted investigating trump's many, many criminal acts in the flailing last days of his Presidency is a serious mistake and horrible professional judgement that they need to answer for, not some anecdote that absolves trump of his criminal acts.

Transmitting documents to Congress isn't a crime.  Forgery is one thing, but openly asserting that one is a duly appointed elector of a state, even when that claim is without serious merit, is a proposition of law. This was not an attempt to dupe recipients with counterfeit certificates.  The way to deal with such frivolous claims is to reject them, which is exactly what Congress did.

The exception to this point is a charge of overall conspiracy to defraud the United States.  The the fake electors *knew* that Trump hadn't won in their states, so their effort to elect him was a criminal conspiracy.  But it is not a crime to simply believe or act on a lie.

[Del Tachi]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

Democrats have not accepted a Republican victory since 1988.  Democrats objected to the electoral college results in 2000, 2004 and 2016 lol   

One out of three, and no riots occurred. Do better

And (arguably more importantly) there were no slates of fake electors from Democrats trying to steal the election the day of Congressional certification.

For all of 2021 and into 2022, the subject of the DOJ's investigation was the Capitol riot itself and not the two-months Trump spent trying to dispute the election beforehand. Trump's lobbying of state legislators, organizing of "alternate" elector slates in key states, and pressuring of Mike Pence to accept them all happened in plain sight and were reported by journalists in real time.  They were not a criminal conspiracy.   

And the DOJ knew it.  Officials at the Justice Department initially shot down several early 2021 proposals to probe Trump and his close allies, per the Washington Post. What changed in 2022 was growing desperation by the Biden administration and partisan investigators at the DOJ to hamstring Trump as a political opponent. They have relied on unprecedented theories of criminality to make their case.

You seem to be under the impression that trying to steal an election by way false slates of electors is not a crime if one does it in broad daylight. This is incorrect. Also, you are factually incorrect that the media and therefore the rest of us knew everything that was going at the time. We did not know, for example, that some young staffer physically flew Wisconsin's false electoral vote paperwork to DC and was instructed to give them to Ken Chesebro, who was then to give them to Ron Johnson, who was then to give them Mike Pence, with the intent of the Vice President substituting trump's wishes in place of the Wisconsin electorate.

The fact the Biden's DoJ initially resisted investigating trump's many, many criminal acts in the flailing last days of his Presidency is a serious mistake and horrible professional judgement that they need to answer for, not some anecdote that absolves trump of his criminal acts.

Transmitting documents to Congress isn't a crime.  Forgery is one thing, but openly asserting that one is a duly appointed elector of a state, even when that claim is without serious merit, is a proposition of law. This was not an attempt to dupe recipients with counterfeit certificates.  The way to deal with such frivolous claims is to reject them, which is exactly what Congress did.

The exception to this point is a charge of overall conspiracy to defraud the United States.  The the fake electors *knew* that Trump hadn't won in their states, so their effort to elect him was a criminal conspiracy.  But it is not a crime to simply believe or act on a lie.

Imma stop you right there. Transmitting false documents to Congress is very much a crime, especially when done with the intent to interfere with the function of government and to steal an election. We literally just had even the republican judges on SCOTUS agree with this (even state it on their own with no prompting!) during oral arguments just weeks ago.

Didn't bother reading the rest of your post since you started out with such a glaring error in the first sentence.

You stopped reading because the rest of my post proves you wrong.

The submitted fake elector certificates weren't "false".  They weren't forged or fabricated; they simply were not valid instruments under the law because they lacked the authorizations required under the Electoral Count Act.  They were incomplete, invalid but that doesn't make them illegal. 

At most, you can argue the fake elector certificates were part of a broader conspiracy to defraud the United States.  But where's the conspiracy?  Yes, Trump's allies "conspired" to make a far-fetched legal argument that would change the election's outcome.  But is that not what every legal team does in an election dispute?  Why is the legal maneuvering of Al Gore's team to affect selective, hand recounts overseen by partisan Democrats and change the legal outcome of Florida's election not a a similar "conspiracy"? 

[Del Tachi]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

Democrats have not accepted a Republican victory since 1988.  Democrats objected to the electoral college results in 2000, 2004 and 2016 lol   

One out of three, and no riots occurred. Do better

And (arguably more importantly) there were no slates of fake electors from Democrats trying to steal the election the day of Congressional certification.

For all of 2021 and into 2022, the subject of the DOJ's investigation was the Capitol riot itself and not the two-months Trump spent trying to dispute the election beforehand. Trump's lobbying of state legislators, organizing of "alternate" elector slates in key states, and pressuring of Mike Pence to accept them all happened in plain sight and were reported by journalists in real time.  They were not a criminal conspiracy.   

And the DOJ knew it.  Officials at the Justice Department initially shot down several early 2021 proposals to probe Trump and his close allies, per the Washington Post. What changed in 2022 was growing desperation by the Biden administration and partisan investigators at the DOJ to hamstring Trump as a political opponent. They have relied on unprecedented theories of criminality to make their case.

You seem to be under the impression that trying to steal an election by way false slates of electors is not a crime if one does it in broad daylight. This is incorrect. Also, you are factually incorrect that the media and therefore the rest of us knew everything that was going at the time. We did not know, for example, that some young staffer physically flew Wisconsin's false electoral vote paperwork to DC and was instructed to give them to Ken Chesebro, who was then to give them to Ron Johnson, who was then to give them Mike Pence, with the intent of the Vice President substituting trump's wishes in place of the Wisconsin electorate.

The fact the Biden's DoJ initially resisted investigating trump's many, many criminal acts in the flailing last days of his Presidency is a serious mistake and horrible professional judgement that they need to answer for, not some anecdote that absolves trump of his criminal acts.

Transmitting documents to Congress isn't a crime.  Forgery is one thing, but openly asserting that one is a duly appointed elector of a state, even when that claim is without serious merit, is a proposition of law. This was not an attempt to dupe recipients with counterfeit certificates.  The way to deal with such frivolous claims is to reject them, which is exactly what Congress did.

The exception to this point is a charge of overall conspiracy to defraud the United States.  The the fake electors *knew* that Trump hadn't won in their states, so their effort to elect him was a criminal conspiracy.  But it is not a crime to simply believe or act on a lie.

Imma stop you right there. Transmitting false documents to Congress is very much a crime, especially when done with the intent to interfere with the function of government and to steal an election. We literally just had even the republican judges on SCOTUS agree with this (even state it on their own with no prompting!) during oral arguments just weeks ago.

Didn't bother reading the rest of your post since you started out with such a glaring error in the first sentence.

You stopped reading because the rest of my post proves you wrong.

The submitted fake elector certificates weren't "false".  They weren't forged or fabricated; they simply were not valid instruments under the law because they lacked the authorizations required under the Electoral Count Act.  They were incomplete, invalid but that doesn't make them illegal. 

At most, you can argue the fake elector certificates were part of a broader conspiracy to defraud the United States.  But where's the conspiracy?  Yes, Trump's allies "conspired" to make a far-fetched legal argument that would change the election's outcome.  But is that not what every legal team does in an election dispute?  Why is the legal maneuvering of Al Gore's team to affect selective, hand recounts overseen by partisan Democrats and change the legal outcome of Florida's election not a a similar "conspiracy"? 

No, I stopped reading b/c you can't muster the ability to go one sentence without stating something wrong. Once you can do that, I'll start indulging the rest of your posts.

lol ok