Trump’s election challenge looks like a scam to line his pockets

[homersapien 11,812]

Opinion by

Dana Milbank

Columnist

November 11, 2020

 

President Trump isn’t really trying to overturn the election. He’s simply running one more scam before he leaves office that would enable him to enrich himself.

That’s the way it appears, at least, from the scores of fundraising emails his campaign has sent out since the election. He seems to be asking for funds to challenge the election, but the fine print shows that the money could let him line his own coffers. The tin-pot-dictator routine looks more as if it’s about passing the tin cup.

“They’re trying to STEAL this Election,” declared one such Trump campaign fundraising missive Wednesday afternoon. from “Donald J. Trump, President of the United States.” “I promise you my team is fighting the clock to DEFEND the integrity of this Election, but we cannot do it alone. We need EVERY Patriot, like YOU, to step up and make sure we have the resources to keep going. … Please contribute ANY AMOUNT RIGHT NOW to DEFEND the Election.”

But at the provided link to the “OFFICIAL ELECTION DEFENSE FUND,” the legalese at the end says something rather different:

Sixty percent of the contribution, up to $5,000, goes to “Save America,” Trump’s newly created leadership PAC. And 40 percent of the contribution up to $35,500, goes to the Republican National Committee’s operating account, its political (not legal) fund.

Only after reaching the first maximum would a single penny go to Trump’s “Recount Account,” and only after reaching the second maximum would a penny go to the RNC’s legal account.

“It’s a straight-up bait and switch,” Paul S. Ryan, the vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, tells me. Such email solicitations target small donors, so for the “overwhelming majority of people contributing … none of their money will end up in recount accounts” or be used for otherwise challenging the election.

Rather, it will be used to extend Trump’s influence over the RNC during the Biden presidency and to build up his leadership PAC, which amounts to a “slush fund” for Trump’s personal use. “There is no limit to how much Donald Trump can pay himself or any member of his family under ‘Save America,’” Ryan notes.

Earlier versions of the “election defense fund” email solicitations indicated the funds were to be used to retire Trump’s campaign debt. “Presumably he raised enough to retire that debt," says Ryan, "and he’s building this new slush fund.”

Should we be surprised?

Trump has used the presidency itself for self-enrichment, so there’s no reason to think an election defeat would stop him. He has funneled vast amounts of taxpayer dollars and political supporters’ funds to his hotels, golf clubs and various properties around the world. Over the years, he has used his charity for self-benefit, he has had favorable treatment by foreign governments, and he has had hundreds of millions in debt forgiven by creditors.

As The Post’s David Fahrenthold wrote last month, Trump’s properties have billed taxpayers at least $2.5 million for such things as: $7,000 for a dinner, $6,000 for flowers, $17,000 monthly for a cottage, up to $650 a night for hotel rooms, $1,000 for drinks for the White House staff and even $3 for drinking water.

The president isn’t the only one in Trump world apparently misleading well-intentioned contributors.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, faces federal charges that he defrauded contributors who thought they were giving money to build a wall on the Mexican border. Arrested on a Chinese billionaire’s yacht, he’s accused of stealing more than $1 million from funds donated to “We Build the Wall.”

But the contest-the-election scam is a dangerous game. Trump’s refusal to cooperate with the Biden transition jeopardizes national security by leaving the United States vulnerable in a way the 9/11 Commission specifically warned about. It’s further discrediting the institutions of American democracy (the Trump-backing Republican secretary of state of Georgia now faces calls for his resignation from fellow Republican officeholders and death threats for simply doing his job). And it’s further paralyzing the country by falsely convincing millions of Trump supporters that something untoward happened in the election.

The New York Times reported that it contacted election officials in all 50 states and not one, Democrat or Republican, found evidence that fraud or irregularities played a role in the election outcome.

The Post reports that the administration is 0 for 6 with its fraud claims so far, as courts reject the frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations.

Republican lawmakers, led by the shameless Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Senate provocateur-in-residence Ted Cruz (Tex.), are indulging Trump’s nonsense claims, regardless of the harm to national security and confidence in U.S. elections.

And in doing so, they’re helping to scam their own supporters into further enriching Trump.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/11/trumps-election-challenge-looks-like-scam-line-his-pockets/

[I_M4_AU 8,600]

What will the media and late night comedians do with Trump out of the White House?  Will they revert back to the Obama years when few things were criticized, or will they remember their role in society?

[homersapien 11,812]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What will the media and late night comedians do with Trump out of the White House?  Will they revert back to the Obama years when few things were criticized, or will they remember their role in society?

Yeah, illuminating the truth behind all the lying political posturing on challenging the election.  BAD MEDIA!!!  BAD!!!!!

(That is their "role in our society", doofus.   )

[I_M4_AU 8,600]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, illuminating the truth behind all the lying political posturing on challenging the election.  BAD MEDIA!!!  BAD!!!!!

(That is their "role in our society", doofus.   )

I’m sure you know this, but the Constitution does not allow the media to determine who the President Elect is.  There are protocols that the Constitution has for fair elections and they are being followed.  The media and a lot of their followers are upset that Trump doesn’t agree with them and is asking for investigations.  Hillary did it in Wisconsin in 2016 and the most famous is Gore in 2000.  That one lasted 37 days and the media let it play out.  You seem like you want to bypass the Constitution like a true Democrat.

[Leftfield 2,979]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m sure you know this, but the Constitution does not allow the media to determine who the President Elect is.  There are protocols that the Constitution has for fair elections and they are being followed.  The media and a lot of their followers are upset that Trump doesn’t agree with them and is asking for investigations.  Hillary did it in Wisconsin in 2016 and the most famous is Gore in 2000.  That one lasted 37 days and the media let it play out.  You seem like you want to bypass the Constitution like a true Democrat.

The media isn't determining it. The election did. The media is simply reporting it, based on the mathematical impossibility of Trump getting enough electoral votes. I assume you're ignoring the fact that the media still has not reported the winner in three states because there is still a mathematical possibility of either candidate winning?

Not a single person here has suggested recounts should not be done in places the President has the legal right to ask for them. We also have not said that credible reports of voter fraud should not be investigated. However, no credible reports have come forward due to lack of evidence.

[I_M4_AU 8,600]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

The media isn't determining it. The election did. The media is simply reporting it, based on the mathematical impossibility of Trump getting enough electoral votes. I assume you're ignoring the fact that the media still has not reported the winner in three states because there is still a mathematical possibility of either candidate winning?

Not a single person here has suggested recounts should not be done in places the President has the legal right to ask for them. We also have not said that credible reports of voter fraud should not be investigated. However, no credible reports have come forward due to lack of evidence.

There are multiple people on this board suggesting that Trump concede the election, if Trump concedes the election the investigations stop and Bide is President Elect.  Trump has no legal standing from that point on.  Therefore, the people that are calling on Trump to concede are the one that say the recounts should not be done.

You can’t determine if a report is credible until you investigate, if the investigation proves those reports credible, then the voter fraud would have to be of a magnitude that could affect the election (which will be very hard to do).  Why can’t people wait until it plays out?  It took Gore 37 days to concede and everybody waited patiently. 

[homersapien 11,812]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m sure you know this, but the Constitution does not allow the media to determine who the President Elect is.  There are protocols that the Constitution has for fair elections and they are being followed.  The media and a lot of their followers are upset that Trump doesn’t agree with them and is asking for investigations.  Hillary did it in Wisconsin in 2016 and the most famous is Gore in 2000.  That one lasted 37 days and the media let it play out.  You seem like you want to bypass the Constitution like a true Democrat.

False equivalence.  Show me where this election is going to be decided by a few hundred votes.

Trump is dragging this out because 1) he is psychologically incapable of dealing with losing and 2) it's a way too fleece more money out of the useful fools who support him.

This harms the country by delaying an effective transition - all while the pandemic is exploding.

Meanwhile, NOTHING is preventing Trump from proceeding with an investigation of fraud, except for the clear lack of evidence of such.  And nothing is preventing recounts in states that were close enough to justify it.

And the media have nothing to do with "letting it play out".  They are simply reporting events as they occur.

[homersapien 11,812]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There are multiple people on this board suggesting that Trump concede the election, if Trump concedes the election the investigations stop and Bide is President Elect.  Trump has no legal standing from that point on.  Therefore, the people that are calling on Trump to concede are the one that say the recounts should not be done.

You can’t determine if a report is credible until you investigate, if the investigation proves those reports credible, then the voter fraud would have to be of a magnitude that could affect the election (which will be very hard to do).  Why can’t people wait until it plays out?  It took Gore 37 days to concede and everybody waited patiently. 

That's just plain old lying.

We have a legal process to initiate and conduct investigations into fraud.  Trump has not met the requirements of that process.  Why?

And again, 2000 is in no way comparable to 2020.

And what do you mean by "Why can’t people wait until it plays out?".    Is there any other choice?

[I_M4_AU 8,600]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Trump is dragging this out because 1) he is psychologically incapable of dealing with losing

I can agree with this statement, but he has to be shown the lose legally.  He probably won’t accept it the same way Hillary is still butt hurt.

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This harms the country by delaying an effective transition - all while the pandemic is exploding.

What a statement.  After all the Democrats celebrating in the streets all over the country and you’re still trying to blame Trump for future deaths.  The lockdowns won’t start until January 20th which gives you more time to stock up on toilet paper.

 

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And the media have nothing to do with "letting it play out".  They are simply reporting events as they occur.

You post daily about Trump not accepting the lose by quoting news articles that support him conceding.  That seems to me not wanting things to play out. They have always had their narrative.  They don’t simply report the events they skew the events to their opinion.

I.E. protests and Biden celebrations are not super spreaders, but Trump rallies are.

[Leftfield 2,979]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There are multiple people on this board suggesting that Trump concede the election, if Trump concedes the election the investigations stop and Bide is President Elect.  Trump has no legal standing from that point on.  Therefore, the people that are calling on Trump to concede are the one that say the recounts should not be done.

You can’t determine if a report is credible until you investigate, if the investigation proves those reports credible, then the voter fraud would have to be of a magnitude that could affect the election (which will be very hard to do).  Why can’t people wait until it plays out?  It took Gore 37 days to concede and everybody waited patiently. 

Investigations absolutely would not stop. Any evidence of voter fraud can and would be investigated after a candidate concedes. As you said, by the Constitution, the election is not certified until the electors vote. It is not decided by a candidate conceding, which is a traditional formality. Clearly that would take away much of the leverage that candidate would have in the court of public opinion, which is a valid argument, but the point here is that Trump knows he has no shot of overturning this election and is simply holding out for selfish reasons, despite the fact he is harming the country. 

This is the frustration that I and so many others (recall that I have traditionally voted Republican) have with those who voted for Trump. It is obvious to us that Trump cares not a bit for this country or those who support him. He is only out for himself and his family, and the more he acts like a dictator the more those who support him seem to rally around him. He has actively eroded trust in our elections, labeled any press agencies that aren't cheerleaders for him as enemies of the people, and where possible removed anyone who isn't a "yes" man and replace them with a complete loyalist that will do his bidding. 

Also, say what you want about Hillary not accepting Trump's win, and I am certainly no fan of hers, but even when losing by smaller margins she had conceded the election by this point.

[Leftfield 2,979]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What a statement.  After all the Democrats celebrating in the streets all over the country and you’re still trying to blame Trump for future deaths.  The lockdowns won’t start until January 20th which gives you more time to stock up on toilet paper.

I.E. protests and Biden celebrations are not super spreaders, but Trump rallies are.

Not agreeing with people congregating, but the major difference here is that Trump's rallies involved him actually encouraging large groups to come together while ignoring safety protocols. Protests and celebrations were not sanctioned by Biden or anyone in his campaign, and in fact went against what they are asking people to do. Also, when Biden held rallies that enforced safety protocols, necessarily limiting the number of people who could attend, he was ridiculed by Trump supporters for not being able to draw large crowds.

You might notice, however, that a much higher percentage of people involved in the protests and celebrations were wearing masks than at Trump's rallies.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Not agreeing with people congregating, but the major difference here is that Trump's rallies involved him actually encouraging large groups to come together while ignoring safety protocols. Protests and celebrations were not sanctioned by Biden or anyone in his campaign, and in fact went against what they are asking people to do. Also, when Biden held rallies that enforced safety protocols, necessarily limiting the number of people who could attend, he was ridiculed by Trump supporters for not being able to draw large crowds.

You might notice, however, that a much higher percentage of people involved in the protests and celebrations were wearing masks than at Trump's rallies.

Yup. Outside, masked up.

Kelly Loeffler had people crammed inside an empty strip mall business yesterday with no masks. 

Also, it's well established that people ignoring poorly communicated and even implicitly discouraged protocols by congregating in restaurants and other indoor spaces and not wearing masks are the primary cause of the extraordinary spread in this country. No correlation was established between the protests earlier in the year and any significant outbreaks.

Christ, some of you are so ******* pathetic. 

 

[I_M4_AU 8,600]

54 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Investigations absolutely would not stop. Any evidence of voter fraud can and would be investigated after a candidate concedes. As you said, by the Constitution, the election is not certified until the electors vote. It is not decided by a candidate conceding, which is a traditional formality. Clearly that would take away much of the leverage that candidate would have in the court of public opinion, which is a valid argument, but the point here is that Trump knows he has no shot of overturning this election and is simply holding out for selfish reasons, despite the fact he is harming the country. 

If he concedes the incentive to investigate would wain. If there was a problem, we wouldn’t find out until 2 years down the road and then what would happen?  These investigations will happen in a quick time and it will be settled soon.  I do not know what Trump thinks (who does), but to think he *knows* he has no shot is your opinion.  I still don’t see how Trump is harming the country by trying to find fraud.  Biden himself said the delay is not affecting his transition. 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

This is the frustration that I and so many others (recall that I have traditionally voted Republican) have with those who voted for Trump.

Why are you frustrated by the people who voted for Trump and not Trump?  This says a lot about you and the people that agreed with you.  You are lumping all the people that voted for Trump with people that worships him.  You probably can’t separate his personality with what he has accomplished in his Presidency.  This election is the same as the last one that people voted for the lesser of two evils.  I believe Biden is a threat to democracy and will be molded by his radical Democratic comrades.  

[I_M4_AU 8,600]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Not agreeing with people congregating, but the major difference here is that Trump's rallies involved him actually encouraging large groups to come together while ignoring safety protocols. Protests and celebrations were not sanctioned by Biden or anyone in his campaign, and in fact went against what they are asking people to do. Also, when Biden held rallies that enforced safety protocols, necessarily limiting the number of people who could attend, he was ridiculed by Trump supporters for not being able to draw large crowds.

You might notice, however, that a much higher percentage of people involved in the protests and celebrations were wearing masks than at Trump's rallies.

The protests during the summer was encouraged by the CDC, of all organizations, as a 1st amendment right.  The governance of the Democratic states that had shutdowns showed little resistance to those protests for causing the spread of COVID.  In LA, for example, still prohibits the churches from exercising their 1st amendment rights.

The celebrations in the streets, again were not discouraged by the policy makers, which in turn, encourages the behavior. Mayor Bill de Blasio was out in the streets himself celebrating.

Just because you can’t point to one particular person as encouraging bad behavior doesn’t mean bad behavior did not exist.  Biden could have discouraged this, but alas. 

Mask wearing is a personal preference and should not be used as a political statement.

[homersapien 11,812]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Just because you can’t point to one particular person as encouraging bad behavior doesn’t mean bad behavior did not exist.  Biden could have discouraged this, but alas. 

Mask wearing is a personal preference and should not be used as a political statement.

Are you serious? 

You really don't think Trump's rallies encouraged bad behavior?

You really don't think Trump - and his associates - didn't politicize mask wearing by demonstrating MAGAs don't see a need for it?  Thanks to Trump and his henchmen, mask wearing has been thoroughly politicized, as evident by your statement calling it a "personal preference"

How Did Mask Wearing Become So Politicized?

Not wearing a mask has become a political act, even though masks slow the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The United States has lagged behind much of the world in its efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Not wearing a mask has become a political act even though masks slow the spread of the virus. As someone who just finished a dissertation on political bias, I was not surprised.

During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a lot of uncertainty about the virus as scientists were still learning about it. This resulted in some mixed messaging from health organizations regarding the importance of wearing masks. Research finds that individuals turn to experts during times of national crisis, but the uncertainty from experts made political leaders a prominent source for guidance and clarity.

The message from American politicians was much more direct, but also differed substantially by political party. Democratic politicians generally took the virus much more seriously and quickly adopted mask-wearing behaviors compared to Republicans. President Trump consistently downplayed the severity of the virus and often refused to wear a mask. This created a clear political divide among politicians about how seriously they took the outbreak.

The social science of political bias

This division within politicians was internalized by the American people as well, according to research and surveys. Identifying as a Democrat was significantly associated with practicing social distancing and being concerned about the virus. Additionally, Republicans were far less likely than Democrats to view COVID-19 as a major threat to public health, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. Sixty-three percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said that masks should be worn always, compared to just 29% of Republicans and those leaning Republican. Furthermore, 23% of Republicans said that masks should rarely or never be worn, compared to just 4% of Democrats. Finally, a recent CBS/YouGov poll showed that 57% of Republicans believed the number of U.S. deaths from coronavirus had been acceptable, compared to 10% of Democrats.

Once the decision to wear a mask became informed by political beliefs, it did not matter that scientists better understood the severity of the virus and the evidence in favor of mask wearing became clearer. Why? Research on identity theory shows that individuals are motivated to maintain consistency between the values associated with their identity and the information they encounter. The groups we identify with provide us with a sense of belonging and self-worth. Thus, if we identify with a political group, our psychological motivation is to process information in a way that supports the group we belong to.

This identity protection process was exactly what I found in my dissertation as well. Both Democrats and Republicans interpreted fictitious news headlines very differently depending on whether the headline was favorable or unfavorable toward their political group. This is consistent with a meta-analysis showing robust political bias for both Democrats and Republicans.

Political polarization is extremely strong in the United States, which further perpetuates political bias. The political divide regarding COVID-19 has actually grown over time, despite our increased knowledge of the virus and the efficacy of mask wearing.

How does this divide continue despite the greater knowledge we have about the virus? Well, Democrats and Republicans trust and consume different news media. These media bubbles can lead to many Americans receiving news regarding COVID-19 that is biased toward supporting their political in-group. Democrats and Republicans each prefer to associate with people who share their political beliefs. Research has also found that political attitudes become more extreme after a group discussion with like-minded people. Additionally, a study of mine found that greater political homogeneity in one’s personal network was associated with stronger political beliefs. This finding was replicated in my dissertation research where I found political polarization was positively associated with having a greater proportion of close associates who hold similar political beliefs.

In summary, once misinformation becomes political, it is very hard to correct because of our motivation to protect our identity and the reinforcement from our political echo chambers.

What next?

To slow the spread of the coronavirus, Republican and Democratic politicians could take COVID-19 equally seriously and listen to the experts. Reducing the political nature of the pandemic will increase people’s receptiveness to information from scientists.

On an individual level, people can also make an effort to reach out to those who are against mask wearing and don’t take the virus seriously. As my research shows, depolarization can occur when there is exposure to opposing viewpoints in one’s personal network. Furthermore, I found in my dissertation that Republicans were more likely to agree that climate change is influenced by human activity when they had more positive feelings toward Democrats. This is consistent with other work that shows how connecting with people we disagree with on an emotional level is key for depolarization and persuasion. Relating this to the pandemic, we can say that when members of our community engage in mask wearing, it becomes more solidified as a social norm among our group, which ultimately leads to more people adopting the behavior.

Finally, increasing mask wearing is just one hurdle. There may be a vaccine for COVID-19 in the months ahead, but the majority of people will have to take it for herd immunity to be achieved. Unfortunately, some polls suggest that about 50% of people may not take the vaccine once it becomes available. Hopefully, the pandemic is less politically charged by then and we can defeat this virus together.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/09/how-did-mask-wearing-become-so-politicized/

 

 

Trump has politicized the pandemic starting at the very beginning - calling it "a Democratic hoax".

[Leftfield 2,979]

36 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why are you frustrated by the people who voted for Trump and not Trump?  This says a lot about you and the people that agreed with you.  You are lumping all the people that voted for Trump with people that worships him.  You probably can’t separate his personality with what he has accomplished in his Presidency.  .  

You're correct, I did generalize, and should not have. However, you proceeded to do the same by saying I "probably can't separate his personality" from his accomplishments.

[I_M4_AU 8,600]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

You're correct, I did generalize, and should not have. However, you proceeded to do the same by saying I "probably can't separate his personality" from his accomplishments.

Can you separate his personality from his accomplishments?

[Leftfield 2,979]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Can you separate his personality from his accomplishments?

Absolutely. I never said everything he did was wrong or in error. There are things he did that I agree with. None of it, in my opinion, comes close to being worth the risk he poses to this country.

[I_M4_AU 8,600]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Absolutely. I never said everything he did was wrong or in error. There are things he did that I agree with. None of it, in my opinion, comes close to being worth the risk he poses to this country.

Thanks for that and I appreciate you proving incorrect.  We just have a difference of opinion with regard to who poses the most risk.

[McLoofus 35,182]

19 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Absolutely. I never said everything he did was wrong or in error. There are things he did that I agree with. None of it, in my opinion, comes close to being worth the risk he poses to this country.

This is a far more common stance than many care to admit. The "they are blind and just hate him and everything he does because lamestream media" fabrication is much simpler and more appealing. 

Yes, I do hate him, because he is an objectively awful human being. I would not want to have a beer with him. I do wish I could punch him in the face. This is true.

Yes, I do think he is our worst president. I don't think it's really up for debate. Certainly, in the 45 years I've been alive, we've never been in worse shape. And that was true before the pandemic. A "robust economy" where the stock holdings of the 1% are soaring, and the bottom 50% have jobs that don't pay them enough to have a decent life, and all of this is because of reckless deregulation that strips away protections for workers and the environment among other nefarious effects, and none of it provides for accessible health care or education, isn't success. 

Do those things mean he didn't get anything right? No. They just mean that, no matter what he did get right, mother ****er got to go. 

[TitanTiger 20,708]

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

Trump and his grifter family are using MAGA suckers to pay off debt.