In the wake of the Supreme Court’s rejection on Friday of President Trump’s last big challenge, the lawsuit filed by the state of Texas against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent and Fox News contributor Byron York summed it all up in five simple, though direct, words.
In a Friday evening op-ed, the veteran political analyst suggested that the Supreme Court’s Friday announcement was hardly a surprise.
“There was no way in the world the Court, at the behest of one state, would throw out election results in four other states.
“There was no basis on which to do it, it was not called for by the Constitution, and it would have set a terrible precedent that would surely plague our politics in years to come.
“In the end, the justices decided not to take the case at all. Only two, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said the court should have taken the case, but even they said they “would not grant other relief” and expressed “no view on any other issue.”
“With that,” wrote York, “Trump’s hope of the nation’s highest court stopping certification of the election died.”
Despite York’s disdain for the merits of the Texas case, he defended Trump’s right to pursue legal challenges — even those York called “far-fetched” — to election results in states he narrowly lost; despite histrionic protestations to the contrary from the Democrat Party and it’s lapdog media sock puppets.
“President Trump’s defenders have pointed out many times, correctly, that he has every right to pursue legal challenges to election results in states he lost narrowly.
“Going to court is not staging a coup or plotting to destroy democracy, as some of Trump’s adversaries have charged. It is the way people, even the president of the United States, pursue claims in the system.
“So, even though many of the cases brought by Trump and his allies have been far-fetched, and he has lost nearly all of them, there was no great harm in bringing them.”
“But the time has come to end it.”
“But the time has come to end it,” York admonished Trump and his supporters.
“Monday is the day electors meet in the states to cast Electoral College votes for president. The states have already certified the results of their elections; the total is 306 electoral votes for Joe Biden and 232 for Trump.
“None of the president’s challenges has resulted in a change in any of those state totals, and he would need that to happen in not one, not two, but three states — say, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania — in order to win.
“Instead, Biden will win the presidency with 306 votes, unless a “faithless elector” or two makes his winning total slightly smaller. (Remember in 2016, when some desperate Democrats hoped droves of electors committed to Trump would abandon that commitment? It didn’t work.)”
In a series of tweets promoting his Washington Examiner column, York said that part of the reason Trump supporters continue to question the election results — and decry “massive election fraud” that was never proved — is because many of them believed Trump would win the election in a landslide.
It should be noted that Trump has suggested that very thing, for at least a year: “The only way I can lose is if ‘they’ rig the election.”
On a personal note, as the election neared, I had multiple Facebook followers (yeah, I hate Zuckerville, too) ask me basically this question: “Do you think Trump will win in a landslide, or will his margin of victory be smaller?”
To that point, York tweeted:
“Perhaps part of [the] reason some question election results is pre-election prevalence on [the] right [was the] belief that Trump would win in landslide.
“Thus [the] result varied wildly from expectations, leading to [a] search for [an] explanation.
“But [a] landslide was never in [the] cards. [A] Trump or Biden victory were both possible. [The] Biden win, fueled by narrow victories in three states—43k votes in GA/AZ/WI—[was] entirely within expectable results.”
Which was my belief heading into the election — a belief that did not sit well with most of the people who asked me the aforementioned question.
Perhaps part of reason some question election results is pre-election prevalence on right of belief that Trump would win in landslide. Thus result varied wildly from expectations, leading to search for explanation… 1/3 https://t.co/Sb0g9qxSei
— Byron York (@ByronYork) December 12, 2020
But landslide was never in cards. Trump or Biden victory were both possible. Biden win, fueled by narrow victories in three states–43k votes in GA/AZ/WI–entirely within expectable results. 2/3 https://t.co/Sb0g9qxSei
— Byron York (@ByronYork) December 12, 2020
“Then there was the shortest, perhaps best, explanation.”
York summed it up, thusly:
“Then there was the shortest, perhaps best, explanation of outcome: Donald Trump had a lot of good luck in 2016 and a lot of bad luck in 2020. Time for Trump to stop.”
“End,” York added, as in “The.”
Then there was the shortest, perhaps best, explanation of outcome: Donald Trump had a lot of good luck in 2016 and a lot of bad luck in 2020. Link: Time for Trump to stop. 3/3 End. https://t.co/Sb0g9qxSei
— Byron York (@ByronYork) December 12, 2020
“The result was not outside the range of reasonable probability, wrote York in the op-ed, “especially after Trump endured four years of 24/7 beating from the resistance, NeverTrumpers, elements inside his own government, and many of the nation’s largest media organizations.”
“That, in the end,” he said, “was the real election interference.”
Amen.
On the other hand, there’s always Sidney Powell and Lin Wood. Check out my earlier article on those two “winners.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member