Attorney General Of PA: "If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

No, I mean by statute. Pennsylvania Statute 732, Sections 204-207 are brief reads. Shapiro has no role and will have no role in determining the outcome of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.

That is great to know...so he is involved in voter cases now but won't be with the actual election?  There is no chance he will have any involvement at all?

Shapiro has been and still is representing the state in lawsuits filed to contest state election law. That's a very different thing than having a role in vote vetting, vote counting, recounts, or ballot audits.

So to the question in red -- correct, no involvement at all in the logistics of the election.

 

[36Kevon]

Yes, he should have phrased it differently from the start, but this is pretty much what he said when he made more complete statements.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/03/trump-spouts-last-minute-lies-top-pennsylvania-officials-make-clear-election-will

The Associated Press called PA for Trump at 1:35am EST in 2016. That was winning by only 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast. There is zero reason PA can’t be called timely tonight or tomorrow morning. 
 

Who cares what the AG has to say..   Will the press call it if the numbers come in for Trump. 

 

[FBG26]

Or maybe more to the point, is this kind of endorsement ok for Attorney Generals to say? 

No, it isn't.  If a Republican AG said the same thing, people would be hyperventilating over it.

While I think (hope?) that the AG is correct, the AG shouldn't be saying this stuff. Totally agree that Democrats would go crazy if a Republican AG in say Georgia said something similar (not too far fetched as, IIRC, the Republican AG won the race for Governor in GA in 2018 when his official role as AG had him supervising elections). 

 

[36Kevon]

Guru said comments like this should be disqualifying.  I want to know if that stance is universal or dependent on who says it.  It's a fair question.

Start another thread about Trump if you want. Don’t hijack this one. TIA. 

 

[36Kevon]

In fairness, Trump really is so bombastic, divisive, and brazen that he really does make it hard to discuss anything but him. 

lol. It’s not that hard. 

 

[Boston]

Shapiro has been and still is representing the state in lawsuits filed to contest state election law. That's a very different thing than having a role in vote vetting, vote counting, recounts, or ballot audits.

So to the question in red -- correct, no involvement at all in the logistics of the election.

If that is the case he can say what he wants...if he has zero legal influence in the election he can be as partisan as he wants.

 

[Rich Conway]

When are people allowed to be outraged at something a Dem does or says?  Please ####### tell me when I can have permission.

Everything bad thing a Dem does is pardoned by Trump's previous bad behavior.  So you don't really care about bad behavior.  You just don't want Trump to do it.

Why doesn't this apply in reverse?

Why is the answer not, "You're allowed to be outraged at Democrat doing X when you're also outraged at Trump repeatedly doing X for the last six months."

 

[AAABatteries]

I believe it’s in response to a question:

Q: Why do you think Donald Trump and Republicans are fighting to keep votes from counting?

A: Because if all the votes get counted, Donald Trump is going to lose.

If this is what happened then it gives context but his answer still should have been - "I'm not sure, you will need to ask the President about that.  Next question."

 

[jm192]

Why doesn't this apply in reverse? 

Why is the answer not, "You're allowed to be outraged at Democrat doing X when you're also outraged at Trump repeatedly doing X for the last six months."

Why can't we all just be allowed to hold each person accountable?

There are dozens if not hundreds of Trump threads.  I've expressed concern about some of what Trump has done.  I haven't been in every thread and commented on every situation--because there's literally a new outrage every day.  I'm numb to it at this point.

But this isn't a Trump thread.  It's someone else's thread.  And EVERYONE insists that in order to talk about the Pennsylvania AG, I must first have spoken on Trump.  Can we never have another discussion?  Only Trump?

But this notion that you can only call out a Democrat if you've called out Trump--what have we become as a society?  Shouldn't we call an apple an apple?

 

[Zow]

lol. It’s not that hard. 

Yes, it is.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So it is his job to reassure the voters of Pennsylvania that despite Trump's constant attacks that their vote will count.   

No disagreement with that sentence.

His job is not to say three days before the election that every vote will count and Trump will lose. 

The fact this is being defended is amazing to me. We're evidently to a point where the highest ranking legal officials presumably responsible for a fair election are proclaiming the results before the votes are counted. 

 

[Gr00vus]

No disagreement with that sentence.

His job is not to say three days before the election that every vote will count and Trump will lose. 

The fact this is being defended is amazing to me. We're evidently to a point where the highest ranking legal officials in charge of counting the votes are proclaiming the results before the votes are counted. 

We just saw up thread that he's not in charge of counting votes. He's not involved in the vote counting process at all. He may have to defend the State's voting laws in court.

Regardless, as a state official, he shouldn't have said anything about who will win or lose.

 

[Zow]

No disagreement with that sentence.

His job is not to say three days before the election that every vote will count and Trump will lose. 

The fact this is being defended is amazing to me. We're evidently to a point where the highest ranking legal officials in charge of counting the votes are proclaiming the results before the votes are counted. 

That isn't part of his duties as I understand it.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

The result of an impeachment trial was announced before any votes were counted. That's fine of course.

 

[36Kevon]

Why doesn't this apply in reverse?

Why is the answer not, "You're allowed to be outraged at Democrat doing X when you're also outraged at Trump repeatedly doing X for the last six months."

It applies in reverse in the threads about stuff Trump did and said. This isn’t one of those. 

 

[Doug B]

The fact this is being defended is amazing to me. We're evidently to a point where the highest ranking legal officials in charge of counting the votes are proclaiming the results before the votes are counted. 

In some states this may be true, but not in Pennsylvania (see Sec 204-207). The AG's office has no role in counting votes or any other aspect of the election.

In essence ... Josh Shapiro IS Josh the Barber.

 

[BassNBrew]

Why doesn't this apply in reverse?

Why is the answer not, "You're allowed to be outraged at Democrat doing X when you're also outraged at Trump repeatedly doing X for the last six months."

You should save the "But Trump" for when Biden is in office.

 

[BassNBrew]

Glad to see our country improving.  Nice progress from Russian interference to American interference in a mere 4 years.

 

[Doug B]

The fact this is being defended is amazing to me. We're evidently to a point where the highest ranking legal officials presumably responsible for a fair election are proclaiming the results before the votes are counted. 

I wouldn't agree that even this is true.

 

[Gr00vus]

There is a larger point here,  that he shouldn't have had to have said anything about whether all the votes will be counted or not. The fact that Trump and the Republicans were asserting (and continue to assert) that the election will be fraudulent months ahead of time, that they then did nothing to help make sure every vote was counted accurately, that they pursued this issue only in regard to batteleground states, and that they are now engaged in suing states over their voting practices is unacceptable. At least 90% of the fault here lies with Trump and the Republicans. Put that up against an off the cuff statement by a state AG, and consider what you should be spending your time questioning.

 

[Doug B]

That isn't part of his duties as I understand it.

Very much not. I've posted the Pennsylvania state law detailing Shapiro's duties and powers twice in this thread.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We just saw up thread that he's not in charge of counting votes. He's not involved in the vote counting process at all. He may have to defend the State's voting laws in court.

Regardless, as a state official, he shouldn't have said anything about who will win or lose.

I changed.

The fact this is being defended is amazing to me. We're evidently to a point where the highest ranking legal officials presumably responsible for a fair election are proclaiming the results before the votes are counted. 

And I've no interest into turning this into a tedious argument. The Attorney General is proclaiming the results before the votes are counted assuming all votes are counted. 

I honestly don't see how that's remotely defensible. 

 

[jm192]

I changed.

The fact this is being defended is amazing to me. We're evidently to a point where the highest ranking legal officials presumably responsible for a fair election are proclaiming the results before the votes are counted. 

And I've no interest into turning this into a tedious argument. The Attorney General is proclaiming the results before the votes are counted assuming all votes are counted. 

I honestly don't see how that's remotely defensible. 

Because...Trump did bad stuff for 4 years.  And really, nothing else can be bad because Trump was bad first.  That's the stance of the PSF.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

The Associated Press called PA for Trump at 1:35am EST in 2016. That was winning by only 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast. There is zero reason PA can’t be called timely tonight or tomorrow morning. 

There wasn't widespread mail-in voting in 2016. And ballots  could be coming in through the end of the week.
The number of ballots outstanding plus the margin either candidate has from the polls will suggest how/if  the outstanding ballots could impact results. 
As of last update sometime this morning, 592k ballots remain outstanding.
Even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules to disallow ballots received after 8pm tonight, more than 2.5 million have already come in. I don't see how those can all be processed and counted by morning.

 

[gianmarco]

Because...Trump did bad stuff for 4 years.  And really, nothing else can be bad because Trump was bad first.  That's the stance of the PSF.

Except for the fact that most everyone in here is acknowledging he shouldn't have said it.  Which you even pointed out yourself.

 

[Joe Bryant]

In some states this may be true, but not in Pennsylvania (see Sec 204-207). The AG's office has no role in counting votes or any other aspect of the election.

In essence ... Josh Shapiro IS Josh the Barber.

Wow.

I fear we're in deep trouble here if the Attorney General of a crucial state saying, "If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." is downplayed to be equal to Josh the Barber saying it. 

 

[BigJim®]

Glad to see our country improving.  Nice progress from Russian interference to American interference in a mere 4 years.

Can you elaborate on this please?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Except for the fact that most everyone in here is acknowledging he shouldn't have said it.  Which you even pointed out yourself.

People here are saying it's no big deal and in essence the Attorney General is the same as Josh The Barber.

 

[jm192]

Except for the fact that most everyone in here is acknowledging he shouldn't have said it.  Which you even pointed out yourself.

You're right.  I'm frustrated at the ones acting like it's not a big deal.  But many have been level headed and impartial on this.  

I disagree with a lot of the people here, even you.  But most are decent guys/gals and able to take their bias out of.  The ones who don't frustrate me to no end.  But youre' right.  Point withdrawn.

 

[Rich Conway]

I changed.

The fact this is being defended is amazing to me. We're evidently to a point where the highest ranking legal officials presumably responsible for a fair election are proclaiming the results before the votes are counted. 

And I've no interest into turning this into a tedious argument. The Attorney General is proclaiming the results before the votes are counted assuming all votes are counted. 

I honestly don't see how that's remotely defensible. 

Because...Trump did bad stuff for 4 years.  And really, nothing else can be bad because Trump was bad first.  That's the stance of the PSF.

Not remotely.  Virtually everyone has agreed that this comment was inappropriate.  What's being questioned is why, to Trump supporters, only this comment is inappropriate, but when Trump has made identical comments for the past six months, those were fine.

 

[jm192]

People here are saying it's no big deal and in essence the Attorney General is the same as Josh The Barber.

I think to @gianmarco's point--A lot of Anti-Trumper's have acknowledged it's a bad look.  There's a handful that are digging in and saying since Trump is considering contesting it--then we shouldn't mind what the AG said.  

 

[Doug B]

People here are saying it's no big deal and in essence the same as Josh The Barber saying it. 

Only me by my lonesome. Not "people," unless someone around here co-signs.

 

[BassNBrew]

Can you elaborate on this please?

Reputable news outlets don't speculate on election outcomes in advance because of potentially altering voting patterns.  You would think an elected AG would maintain the same standard of non-interference.

 

[Mookie]

His statement is out of line and unnecessary politicizes the election process.  The AG is not responsible for overseeing the election but certainly has a role in defending the election process.  While it is also a likely byproduct of fighting the Trump campaign's ongoing efforts to suppress the vote in his State, he still should have focused on insuring that the election is fair and the results are accurate. 

 

[BigJim®]

Reputable news outlets don't speculate on election outcomes in advance because of potentially altering voting patterns.  You would think an elected AG would maintain the same standard of non-interference.

Ah, got it. I agree.

 

[gianmarco]

People here are saying it's no big deal and in essence the same as Josh The Barber saying it. 

I don't think people are saying it's no big deal. It's certainly worthy of discussion. People have even pointed out that if asked to step down, they wouldn't argue it. That would seem to me people posting here consider it a big deal.

I also think the context matters. Here is more of what he said. This entire conversation is in response to trying to get votes thrown out.  Polls show Trump is losing there. That Trump is trying to get votes thrown out also goes along with that. In that context, I understand why he said it even though he shouldn't have. In the quote below, I think it's clear what he meant by those words.

Last week, Shapiro accused Trump of “actively trying to undermine this election” because he is unable to win Pennsylvania.

“He’s doing that because he knows that if all legal eligible votes are counted, he’s more likely than not going to come out on the losing side here in Pennsylvania,” the attorney general said.

 

[Doug B]

I think to @gianmarco's point--A lot of Anti-Trumper's have acknowledged it's a bad look.  There's a handful that are digging in and saying since Trump is considering contesting it--then we shouldn't mind what the AG said.  

My only point is that the Pennsylvania AG does not have a conflict of duty that prevents him from speaking publicly about the matter. I can agree that it was an ill-advised tweet, but only for strategic reasons.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't think people are saying it's no big deal. It's certainly worthy of discussion. People have even pointed out that if asked to step down, they wouldn't argue it. That would seem to me people posting here consider it a big deal.

I also think the context matters. Here is more of what he said. This entire conversation is in response to trying to get votes thrown out.  Polls show Trump is losing there. That Trump is trying to get votes thrown out also goes along with that. In that context, I understand why he said it even though he shouldn't have. In the quote below, I think it's clear what he meant by those words.

Last week, Shapiro accused Trump of “actively trying to undermine this election” because he is unable to win Pennsylvania.

“He’s doing that because he knows that if all legal eligible votes are counted, he’s more likely than not going to come out on the losing side here in Pennsylvania,” the attorney general said.

Wouldn't it be great if we had judges saying...If all the jurors do their job, the defendant is going to come up on the losing side.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't think people are saying it's no big deal. It's certainly worthy of discussion. People have even pointed out that if asked to step down, they wouldn't argue it. That would seem to me people posting here consider it a big deal.

I also think the context matters. Here is more of what he said. This entire conversation is in response to trying to get votes thrown out.  Polls show Trump is losing there. That Trump is trying to get votes thrown out also goes along with that. In that context, I understand why he said it even though he shouldn't have. In the quote below, I think it's clear what he meant by those words.

Last week, Shapiro accused Trump of “actively trying to undermine this election” because he is unable to win Pennsylvania.

“He’s doing that because he knows that if all legal eligible votes are counted, he’s more likely than not going to come out on the losing side here in Pennsylvania,” the attorney general said.

In essence ... Josh Shapiro IS Josh the Barber.

It is not a guarantee of a Trump loss as some are saying. It is just a prediction, his opinion of the outcome if all votes are counted.

I don't think he was sharing insider information but trying to reassure voters that the Pennsylvania election and its residents' vote are secure despite the best efforts of the Trump campaign.  That he and his staff have been on it.

There is no big deal!  There is no inappropriate statement.  There is no leaking of insider information.  There is a prediction which is shared by most people.  But most of all there is a partisan reassurance to "his side" that if you vote it will matter and be counted.  Fumbled on the wording a bit,  but beyond that finding something to get worked up over is just because one wants to find it.

Unless there’s evidence of any actual wrongdoing I think he can have his opinion. Really, the egregious thing said here is “IF” we count the votes, not “when” we count the votes. The if is there because of republican efforts to stop counting. 

The outrage is here is quite ridiculous. Let me know when he’s taking actions to keep voters from getting their votes counted because that’s what he’s fighting against.

 

[Biff84]

If this is what happened then it gives context but his answer still should have been - "I'm not sure, you will need to ask the President about that.  Next question."

It’s poor optics for sure but mainly how he posted it on his Twitter account. To be clear, I listened to him being interviewed last night and my comments are based on that rather than the specific tweet. The tweet shouldn’t have been made like that. But his current role is fighting against lawsuits from the GOP trying to prevent votes from being counted. He let part of that fight slip into his tweet and that’s wrong but that doesn’t mean he’s going to influence the election in any way other than making sure everyone’s vote counts.

The outrage is here is quite ridiculous. Let me know when he’s taking actions to keep voters from getting their votes counted because that’s what he’s fighting against.

 

[JAA]

Its my understand from an ethics standpoint that you should not share your opinion using your (in MA) municipal employee title.  If he would have said "As a resident of PA I believe ...", that would be reasonable even from his stump.  But using his title, and saying what he said, not ethical as I understand the definition in MA.

 

[jm192]

I don't think people are saying it's no big deal. It's certainly worthy of discussion. People have even pointed out that if asked to step down, they wouldn't argue it. That would seem to me people posting here consider it a big deal.

I also think the context matters. Here is more of what he said. This entire conversation is in response to trying to get votes thrown out.  Polls show Trump is losing there. That Trump is trying to get votes thrown out also goes along with that. In that context, I understand why he said it even though he shouldn't have. In the quote below, I think it's clear what he meant by those words.

Last week, Shapiro accused Trump of “actively trying to undermine this election” because he is unable to win Pennsylvania.

“He’s doing that because he knows that if all legal eligible votes are counted, he’s more likely than not going to come out on the losing side here in Pennsylvania,” the attorney general said.

Sure.  I think Trump throwing out all the voter fraud talk undermines confidence in the results --but I also think a large portion of the country has decided Trump is so FOS that they ignore a lot of what he says.  I'm not saying that makes it ok.  

I also think the wording the PA AG used today undermines confidence.  Whether he chose poor wording or not.  

 

[JAA]

While we are on ethics ...

As a rule of thumb I do not think sitting officials should be using their office for campaigning.  Not legal here in MA from an ethics standpoint.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Reputable news outlets don't speculate on election outcomes in advance because of potentially altering voting patterns.  You would think an elected AG would maintain the same standard of non-interference.

100% agree.  
 

This is what happens when democratic norms are systematically eroded.  Honestly, it is hard for me to feel outraged by THIS when just yesterday the sitting President suggested that there will be violence in the streets if he loses.

So......the AG of PA saying this is a crisis....but the President telling his supporters to go out and spread violence if he loses.....is no big deal?

Note:  I don’t believe that’s really what Joe or anyone else is saying.  But it is one of the first things that went through my mind.  We have different rules for different people now....and that’s pretty wild.

The AG should have said as little as possible.  He shouldn’t comment on the election.  Or pontificate on the outcome.  But seriously — this pales in comparison to what we’ve heard every.....single.....day......from the sitting President for weeks now.

 

[Doug B]

Its my understand from an ethics standpoint that you should not share your opinion using your (in MA) municipal employee title.  If he would have said "As a resident of PA I believe ...", that would be reasonable even from his stump.  But using his title, and saying what he said, not ethical as I understand the definition in MA.

This is a better point of opposition that has been made so far.

 

[Doug B]

This is what happens when democratic norms are systematically eroded.

Yes.

 

[AAABatteries]

Wow.

I fear we're in deep trouble here if the Attorney General of a crucial state saying, "If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose." is downplayed to be equal to Josh the Barber saying it. 

I've already stated for the record I'm in agreement with you but just to play Devil's Advocate here - many people are basically saying, how is it possible to get upset about this when the guy who is running the country does 10 times worst multiple times a day and that side is ok with it.  At some point in the "fight" you have to do something to win or you just let the unethical bullies win every time.  I don't like it, I won't personally stoop to it but I get the rationale. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

100% agree.  
 

This is what happens when democratic norms are systematically eroded.  Honestly, it is hard for me to feel outraged by THIS when just yesterday the sitting President suggested that there will be violence in the streets if he loses.

So......the AG of PA saying this is a crisis....but the President telling his supporters to go out and spread violence if he loses.....is no big deal?

Note:  I don’t believe that’s really what Joe or anyone else is saying.  But it is one of the first things that went through my mind.  We have different rules for different people now....and that’s pretty wild.

The AG should have said as little as possible.  He shouldn’t comment on the election.  Or pontificate on the outcome.  But seriously — this pales in comparison to what we’ve heard every.....single.....day......from the sitting President for weeks now.

Thanks. For sure I have zero whataboutism in play on this. This thread was about the Pennsylvania AG. If other people have said something worth discussion, for sure please start a thread on it. But that doesn't affect this in my opinion. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I've already stated for the record I'm in agreement with you but just to play Devil's Advocate here - many people are basically saying, how is it possible to get upset about this when the guy who is running the country does 10 times worst multiple times a day and that side is ok with it.  At some point in the "fight" you have to do something to win or you just let the unethical bullies win every time.  I don't like it, I won't personally stoop to it but I get the rationale. 

I'm certainly not ok with someone else doing something 10x worse than this. But can you be specific on what you're talking about and we can discuss that?

I haven't supported President Trump here. My guess is I'd agree with the criticism of him. This thread was solely because my attorney friend sent me this today and was floored the Attorney General of Pennsylvania would say this. I agreed. We can do the whatabout but that's separate from this. 

 

[BassNBrew]

100% agree.  
 

This is what happens when democratic norms are systematically eroded.  Honestly, it is hard for me to feel outraged by THIS when just yesterday the sitting President suggested that there will be violence in the streets if he loses.

So......the AG of PA saying this is a crisis....but the President telling his supporters to go out and spread violence if he loses.....is no big deal?

Note:  I don’t believe that’s really what Joe or anyone else is saying.  But it is one of the first things that went through my mind.  We have different rules for different people now....and that’s pretty wild.

The AG should have said as little as possible.  He shouldn’t comment on the election.  Or pontificate on the outcome.  But seriously — this pales in comparison to what we’ve heard every.....single.....day......from the sitting President for weeks now.

We can't let the lowest common dominator become the standard.  We'll be much better off with Trump out of office on that front.