On Wednesday afternoon, The Hill, a DC-based political newspaper, published a story covering the recent commentary of Libertarian National Committee Chairwoman Angela McArdle concerning her statements following the four-count indictment of former President Donald Trump.
Federal prosecutors indicted Trump and his associates earlier this week, alleging a scheme to use fraudulent electoral college votes to overturn the 2020 election and spread false claims of unfairness. The plot centered around creating and submitting fraudulent certificates of ascertainment for several states hoping that then-Vice President Mike Pence would count them. A criminal investigation is currently ongoing in Arizona, and the sixteen electors linked to the scheme in Michigan are facing felony charges as of July.
In her statement, McArdle asserted that such behavior from candidates occurs “routinely,” drawing comparisons between Donald Trump and former Democratic presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.
“Many past candidates, including presidential nominee Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton who, in 2016, called Trump an ‘illegitimate President’ who ‘stole the election,’ have routinely refused to concede elections and forced tedious recounts involving Supreme Court decisions,” McArdle is quoted as saying.
McArdle further contended that “fighting to win an election isn’t a crime,” and she criticized those who sought indictments against the former President, accusing them of playing the role of “kingmaker outside the electoral process.”
Readers of Independent Political Report can view the full piece produced by The Hill here.
There was an outbreak of comments about the 2020 election and opinions of the former President. The comments ceased to be third party news, became less than polite,…so that thread in the comments has been removed. The writers in question are welcome to continue posting about the topics that we cover.
In contrast, though you need to read to the bottom to find it, and then notice what is not there,
https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/democrats-handling-hunter-biden-story-wrong
is third party news, namely the writer mentions the Green Party, the No Labels Party, but does not mention the third party that actually led all other third parties in the last three Presidential popular vote totals, namely the Libertarian Party. There is a message here.
Litigating to challenge an election is unexceptionable, though in Trump’s case it proved to be pointless. Attempting to subvert an election or using violence to attempt to overturn an election is an elephant of a different color. No honest person who watched the assault on the Capitol, complete with men forcing barricades, breaking windows to secure entry, spraying police officers with poison gas, and much more, all with Trump telling them to advance on the Capitol, can deny that the assault was violent.
Trump and cadres thus gave us the second occasion in the quarter-millennium of our Republic in which violence was used to attempt to reject a Presidential election. The first, of course, was the traitor Breckinridge, the traitor Bell, and their allies including the traitor Jefferson Davis and the traitor Robert Edward Lee, who in 1861 attempted by violence to subvert the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States of America.
Trump’s activities, including calling on the Vice President to betray his oath of office by failing to count valid electoral votes, has nothing to do with contesting an election. They had to do with ‘fighting’ an election, the word ‘fighting’ betrayal the unAmerican seditious and revolutionary activities of Trump and his rabble.
Angela is entirely wrong to claim that Trump behaved exactly as Gore did. Gore went to court promptly, presented appropriate evidence, and abided by decisions of the courts. He counted the ballots that declared his loss, and shut down efforts to claim fraud or to claim that his power on that day was any more than ceremonial.
Angela tells it like it is. That’s why she is such a great chair.
“If it wasn’t McArdle saying this, let’s say Nick Sarwark said this, you would agree with him.”
Since that appears to be addressed to me, I’ll answer:
Bullshit. I disagree with Nick Sarwark often, and have done so publicly many times.
Anyone who thinks the 2020 presidential election outcome was altered by fraud has a duty to say which states were wrongly decided. If someone will specify a particular state, then the audience can evaluate the claim, because there is plenty of evidence for each particular state. People who say the election was fraudulent, including Donald Trump himself, tend not to specify any particular state, which makes their claims unpersuasive.
Rick – do you have evidence for your charges? If you do, that makes you different from Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, the Pillow guy or The Donald.
Please share your evidence if you have it. Inquiring minds want to know. Just making charges and claims is not enough. If you make a charge like you did, you need to appeal to the facts of reality.
There’s no way Biden received 81 million legitimate votes. There was fraud, no question. The question is enough fraud to change the outcome?
If Democrats have the right to call fraud regarding 2016, Trump has that same right regarding 2020.
There are reports states run by Democrats had plans to submit alertnate electors if Trump was reelected. Why aren’t they being investigated?
How many Democrats in Congress rejected the 2004 and 2016 electoral votes?
If this was Guatemala, North Korea, or any other third world country, where the leader is trying to throw his opponent in prison, you’d be crying foul.
Where is the evidence Trump excited a riot? He clearly said to March peacefully to the Capitol. Protesting is legal under our Constitution.
If it wasn’t McArdle saying this, let’s say Nick Sarwark said this, you would agree with him.
So, she’s here to vouch for Trump.
SMH
I’m not an Al Gore fan, but comparing him to Trump is, well, idiotic.
Gore defended his Florida election victory in court, accepted the rulings when the courts cooperated in the theft, and, as vice-president presiding over the Senate for the counting of electoral votes, firmly put down his attempts from his own party to change the outcome.
Trump pretended his national election loss was an election victory, begged Georgia’s secretary of state to steal that state’s electoral votes for him, created fake sets of electors in hopes of substituting them for the real ones, had attorneys file frivolous lawsuits (instantly withdrawn in the few cases where judges invited them to proceed to discovery instead of dismissing them outright), supported state legislators attempting to illegally undo the elector selections in their states, encouraged a mob to storm the Capitol to steal the election for him, and tried to convince his vice-president to steal it for him.
So… does McArdle not believe that fraud is a violation of the NAP? Or does she believe fraud is only a NAP violation if it succeeds, but an attempt at fraud is not?
Either way, I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anyone that she’s running to Trump’s defense.
McArdle is not totally wrong, but she is pretty close.
McArdle is 100% correct.
Wow!