While Trump fumes, Joe gets to work

@suzianne said
Does the act outline any forms of redress the President-Elect may have in securing the transition resources, in case of petulance on the part of the outgoing administration?

Tell Biden to follow through with his threat to take legal action. The fact he hasn't proves he has no legal standing and it was a bluff.

@no1marauder said
As already pointed out, this election is no closer than the one in 2016 with the winning President-Elect being projected to get the same amount of Electoral Votes and having bigger leads in the important "swing" States. In 2016:

"In 2016, the decision by the GSA acting administrator to begin the transition process occurred on November 9, the day after the election."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gsa-general-services-administration-presidential-transition/

That is irrelevant. HRC did not contest the election. She conceded.

@no1marauder said
MB: "Apparent doesn't mean anything but to the individual opinion of what apparent is."

You truly are incredibly ignorant of how laws work.

The loser not conceding has absolutely nothing to do with the provisions of the law. Why you think it is important is beyond me.

" Since 1963, GSA has ascertained the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect “within hours o ...[text shortened]... College,”

https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020.11.10-GSA-Letter-FINAL.pdf

What is wrong with you?
If an opponent concedes that is true, but Trump did not concede. That changes everything.

@metal-brain said
What is wrong with you?
If an opponent concedes that is true, but Trump did not concede. That changes everything.

Could you please point to the language in the Presidential Transition Act that supports such a claim?

I couldn't find anything like "The provisions of this Act only apply if the defeated Presidential candidate doesn't throw a hissy fit and refuse to admit he/she lost" but maybe you could locate such a provision.

@no1marauder said
Could you please point to the language in the Presidential Transition Act that supports such a claim?

I couldn't find anything like "The provisions of this Act only apply if the defeated Presidential candidate doesn't throw a hissy fit and refuse to admit he/she lost" but maybe you could locate such a provision.

Once again, GWB did not concede. That is why Al Gore never became the president elect and never got privileges from the GSA. Had Al Gore refused to concede Bush would not have gotten those privileges either. Not my fault SCOTUS stopped the recount. That changed things.

I couldn't find anything in Presidential Transition Act or any other legal document that says a presidential candidate becomes the presidential elect even if his opponent refuses to concede. Could you please point to the language in the Presidential Transition Act that supports such a claim?

@metal-brain said
Once again, GWB did not concede. That is why Al Gore never became the president elect and never got privileges from the GSA. Had Al Gore refused to concede Bush would not have gotten those privileges either. Not my fault SCOTUS stopped the recount. That changed things.

I couldn't find anything in Presidential Transition Act or any other legal document that says a presi ...[text shortened]... ould you please point to the language in the Presidential Transition Act that supports such a claim?

We already covered 2000; the lack of a concession had nothing to do with it - there was no "apparent winner" for quite some time because the candidates were separated by only a few hundred votes in one State that had sufficient Electoral Votes to decide the outcome one way or another. The situation this year is quite different and pretty much identical to 2016 when the GSA promptly ascertained the apparent winner has it has done for every election since 1964 (with the exception of 2000).

I already gave you the language in the Presidential Transition Act. Nothing in it is reliant on the losing candidate conceding as you already know.

EDIT: Here it is AGAIN:

""The terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect" as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg153.pdf

@no1marauder said
We already covered 2000; the lack of a concession had nothing to do with it - there was no "apparent winner" for quite some time because the candidates were separated by only a few hundred votes in one State that had sufficient Electoral Votes to decide the outcome one way or another. The situation this year is quite different and pretty much identical to 2016 when the GS ...[text shortened]... s Code, sections 1 and 2.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg153.pdf

In 2016 the poll had HRC leading and people thought it was apparent should would win until she lost. Your pointing to a term like "apparent" is beyond silly.

Does Biden have any electoral delegates yet? Yes or no?

@metal-brain said
In 2016 the poll had HRC leading and people thought it was apparent should would win until she lost. Your pointing to a term like "apparent" is beyond silly.

Does Biden have any electoral delegates yet? Yes or no?

This is a waste of time; the Congress used the word "apparent" for a reason. They did not say that the use of office space and other things required by the Act had to wait until the Electors voted.

You have been told this repeatedly.

@no1marauder said
This is a waste of time; the Congress used the word "apparent" for a reason. They did not say that the use of office space and other things required by the Act had to wait until the Electors voted.

You have been told this repeatedly.

You evaded my question.
Does Biden have any electoral delegates yet? Yes or no?

You know he doesn't.

@metal-brain said
You evaded my question.
Does Biden have any electoral delegates yet? Yes or no?

You know he doesn't.

So what?

That is irrelevant to the purpose of the Presidential Transition Act. Again:

"""The terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect" as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg153.pdf

Such election has been held and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are "the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively".

@no1marauder said
So what?

That is irrelevant to the purpose of the Presidential Transition Act. Again:

"""The terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect" as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator [b]following the general elections held ...[text shortened]... e "the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively".

Once again, it will not be apparent until the electoral delegates are given to each candidate. That will not happen until mid Dec.

I couldn't find anything in Presidential Transition Act or any other legal document that says a presidential candidate becomes the presidential elect BEFORE receiving electoral delegates even if his opponent refuses to concede. Could you please point to the language in the Presidential Transition Act that supports such a claim?

@metal-brain said
Once again, it will not be apparent until the electoral delegates are given to each candidate. That will not happen until mid Dec.

I couldn't find anything in Presidential Transition Act or any other legal document that says a presidential candidate becomes the presidential elect BEFORE receiving electoral delegates even if his opponent refuses to concede. Could you please point to the language in the Presidential Transition Act that supports such a claim?

I already did multiple times.

If they wanted to wait until the Electors voted to say who the President-Elect was for the purposes of the Act were, they could have said so. They didn't. And, in fact, the GSA has never done so except in 2000 for reasons already stated.

@no1marauder said
I already did multiple times.

If they wanted to wait until the Electors voted to say who the President-Elect was for the purposes of the Act were, they could have said so. They didn't. And, in fact, the GSA has never done so except in 2000 for reasons already stated.

Laws lack specificity all of the time. It means nothing and you know it.
If they wanted to say a candidate becomes a President-Elect despite a refusal to concede from an opponent they could have said so. They didn't.

@metal-brain said
Laws lack specificity all of the time. It means nothing and you know it.
If they wanted to say a candidate becomes a President-Elect despite a refusal to concede from an opponent they could have said so. They didn't.

That is facially absurd and any rational person would know it. Laws don't have to explicitly rule out any unlikely and farfetched scenario. The text of the statute make it quite clear that a candidate's concession or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant (does Kanye West, Howie Hawkins, Jo Jorgensen, etc. etc. etc. have to concede too?).

@no1marauder said
That is facially absurd and any rational person would know it. Laws don't have to explicitly rule out any unlikely and farfetched scenario. The text of the statute make it quite clear that a candidate's concession or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant (does Kanye West, Howie Hawkins, Jo Jorgensen, etc. etc. etc. have to concede too?).

"Laws don't have to explicitly rule out any unlikely and farfetched scenario."

LOL!
Georgia would not have a mandatory recount for a far fetched scenario. Since it is the law in Georgia to provide a mandatory recount you are apparently taking the position that Georgia's law is far fetched and unrealistic. Is that where you are drifting to? Georgia's law is stupid?

Who are these organizations? I want to ask them where they got there time machines and crystal balls?