AMERICAN POLITICS - Trump's Shakedown Attempt

"Donald Trump Should Be Prosecuted for His Shakedown of Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger" by Richard L.  Hasen, Slate 1/4/2021

President Donald Trump likely broke both federal and state law in a Saturday phone call during which he encouraged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn the state’s election results.  The President certainly committed an impeachable offense that is grounds for removing him from the office he will be vacating in less than three weeks or disqualifying him from future elected office.  His tumultuous term will end as it began, with questions as to the legality of conduct connected to manipulating American elections, and a defense based squarely on the idea that Trump’s mind is so warped that he actually believes the nonsense he spews.  Trump may never be put on trial for what he did, but a failure to prosecute him may lead to a further deterioration of American democracy.

The Washington Post’s bombshell report and audio recording of a Saturday conversation among Trump; his chief of staff, Mark Meadows; Republican election attorney Cleta Mitchell; and Georgia election officials featured a litany of unproven and debunked claims of voter fraud in Georgia.  Trump claimed he had actually won the state by hundreds of thousands of votes and suggested Raffensperger could face criminal liability for not going after this phantom fraud.

In the course of describing such fraud, Trump attempted fraud of his own, asking Raffensperger to engage in belated ballot box–stuffing to benefit him.  (Never mind that Georgia certified its vote totals weeks ago and has submitted its Electoral College votes for counting by Congress on Wednesday.)  Among the most damning things Trump said was the following:

It is more illegal for you than it is for [election officials] because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it.  That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense.  And you can’t let that happen.  That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan [Germany], your lawyer.  And that’s a big risk.  But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard.  And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds.  And you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen.  You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen.  So look.  All I want to do is this.  I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

Make no mistake: In that last sentence, Trump was asking Raffensperger to manufacture enough votes to overturn the results in Georgia based upon nothing but Trump’s false accusations of fraud and irregularities.  In the previous passage, it sounded very much as though he was threatening Raffensperger with some sort of criminal offense if he did not do as Trump commanded.  (No evidence has emerged that, in ensuring that Georgia’s election results were counted properly, Raffensperger has committed any crime.)  This request is easily the kind of corrupt conduct that could serve as a “high crime and misdemeanor” subjecting him to removal from office, though with his departure imminent it seems unlikely that Congress would take up the case.  The conduct, though, is much more egregious than the Ukraine threats that got Trump impeached one year ago, conduct that was also aimed at manipulating the election by pressuring Ukrainian officials to come up with fake dirt on Joe Biden.  Trump, of course, also entered office under a cloud of suspicion over his campaign’s links to Russia and Vladimir Putin’s successful efforts to manipulate the 2016 election on his behalf.  In the unlikely event that Congress were to make him the first President ever to be impeached twice—impeachments can happen even after elected officials leave office—then he could be disqualified from running for high office again in the future.  It has been reported that, when not attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Trump has been planning a possible third run for President in 2024.

Aside from being impeachable conduct, Trump’s actions likely violate federal and Georgia law.  A federal statute makes it a crime when one “knowingly and willfully … attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by … the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.”  A Georgia statute similarly provides that a “person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.”

For both statutes, the easy part for prosecutors would be proving that there was no basis in fact for Georgia election officials to flip the lead in Georgia to Trump by adding 11,780 votes to his totals, giving him one more vote than Biden’s margin of victory.  The ballots in that state have been counted, and recounted both by hand and by machine, and Biden’s victory is certain.  And as Raffensperger pointed out repeatedly on the call, every court that has investigated Trump’s fraud claims has found them to be completely spurious.  Adding 11,780 votes to Trump’s column—or removing legal Biden ballots—would defraud Georgia voters of the actual outcome they chose.  Counting fake ballots or removing lawful ones would deprive Georgia voters of a fair and impartially conducted election process.  That is the definition of election fraud.

The hard part for prosecutors would be proving Trump’s state of mind, because the statutes require proof of knowledge and intent.  Prosecutors would have to show that Trump knew that Biden fairly won the election, and Trump was asking for Georgia officials to commit election fraud.  And it’s not clear prosecutors could make that case.

As with so many things in this presidency and President, the question is whether Trump is drinking his own Kool-Aid.  Reading the entire one-hour, rambling call transcript, it is hard to know if Trump actually believes the fever swamp of debunked conspiracy theories about the election or whether he’s just using the false claims as a cover to get the political results he wants.  It’s not much different than Trump’s statements denying Russian election hacking in 2016, his professed ignorance of the aims of QAnon and the Proud Boys, and his speculation about whether ingesting bleach can protect against the coronavirus.  And during the Ukraine impeachment saga, of course, nearly every Republican senator voted to acquit the President on the implausible basis that Trump was merely asking Ukraine to legitimately investigate Joe Biden for possible criminal conduct rather than seeking to corruptly advance his own electoral interests.  In all of these cases, Trump’s conspiratorial rantings display either profound ignorance, deep cynicism, or both.

Trump is the rare potential criminal defendant to have plausible deniability about whether he accepts truths as clear as gravity, making any prosecution difficult.  Add onto that concerns of prosecutorial discretion for both the new Biden administration and Georgia officials, possible claims of legal immunity, a Presidential self-pardon that could relieve Trump of liability under federal law, and other political hurdles, and a prosecution of Trump is unlikely.

Despite the long odds, I would hope at least Georgia prosecutors will consider going after Trump, or that the House of Representatives might impeach him again with the goal of disqualifying him from running in 2024.  Lack of prosecution or investigation demonstrates that there’s little to deter the next would-be authoritarian—perhaps a more competent one—from trying to steal an election.  Trump came a lot closer than he should have this time, and next time we may not be so lucky.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Election 2020 Coup Attempt

"The Senate’s coup-staging ‘Dirty Dozen’ shouldn’t be allowed to hold office" by Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post 1/4/2021

In a world in which lawmakers honored their oaths, Republicans would have voted to impeach President Trump for his conduct detailed in the Mueller report or for attempting to extort Ukraine to help his reelection.  They would have forced him to resign or induced him not to run in 2020.  In the real world, Republicans — in rationalizing his unacceptable behavior before the election and supporting his efforts to overturn the election results based on no evidence afterward — remind us they have irrevocably forfeited their moral authority to lead.  (Yes, I laughed putting “Republicans” and “moral” in the same sentence.)

The “Dirty Dozen” or the “Sedition Caucus,” as the senators who declared their plan to challenge the electoral college votes have been tagged on social media, has been attempting an anti-democratic putsch.  Remember the names of the Republican senators who seek to violate the results of an election and install their preferred candidate: Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Cynthia M. Lummis of Wyoming, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Steve Daines of Montana, John Neely Kennedy of Louisiana, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Mike Braun of Indiana, and Roger Marshall of Kansas.  It may become a baker’s dozen with Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) telling Fox News on Sunday, “I’ve said from the start, everything is on the table here, and I’m seriously looking at that.”

It makes no difference if they pledge as Hawley did to challenge the results or, as the rest of the Sedition Caucus, challenge the results unless Congress gives way to their demand to set up a commission to investigate (nonexistent) fraud.  The votes have been certified, the electoral votes cast and a new President has been elected.

There is no basis for overturning the presidential results in an election in which, mind you, a third of the Senate (including many of the Dirty Dozen) and every House member were elected or reelected.  The argument to justify such seditious activity — that there are lots of “complaints” or “people don’t believe the results” — is circular and ludicrous.  People may believe something crazy because Republicans raised entirely crazy and baseless allegations of fraud.  In about 60 cases brought to contest the election, not one produced evidence of fraud.  In many instances, Trump’s lawyers did not bother to raise the allegation of fraud since they could not point to any.

In any event, it makes a mockery of our legal system to think that four of the Dirty Dozen — Cruz, Kennedy, Hawley and Blackburn — sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  These four have shown themselves to be incapable of fairly deciding whether to confirm judicial nominees or considering legislation to protect the integrity of the courts and the rule of law.

The Dirty Dozen and reportedly 140 or so House members who also plan to challenge the results are attempting to obtain the same results Trump did by threatening Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in a phone call on Saturday.  These spurious challenges to an election should remind us that the GOP has become an authoritarian, unprincipled party whose only purpose is to retain power by whatever means possible.  It should permanently disqualify these Republicans from holding office.

Those who are lawyers — such as Cruz and Hawley, who both clerked for Supreme Court chief justices — should know better.  Their actions should result in serious professional sanctions up to and including disbarment.  Section 8.04 of Texas bar’s ethics rules says a lawyer shall not “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”  Deceiving the public about the outcome of an election and attempting to overthrow the duly elected President surely would qualify.  Likewise, in Missouri, the ethics rules state, “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”  That perfectly describes the utterly unmeritorious challenge to the electoral college.

In casting their ballots in the Senate runoff, Georgia voters should take care not to elect any more Republican senators whose victories would protect their majority.  They have shown themselves as unfit to hold office as Trump.  While we cannot remove them until they come up for reelection, Georgia voters at the very least can deprive them of the majority and control of the committees.

VOTE 2020 - Donald, Even Mike Pence Knows

 

The Lincoln Project

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/11/2020

"Shields and Brooks on Republicans’ latest election challenge" PBS NewsHour 12/11/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including congressional negotiations, President-elect Biden's cabinet picks and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Texas's election challenges.

Judy Woodruff:  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, let's begin with the news this evening, the Supreme Court saying that they do not have standing to take this case filed by the state of Texas challenging, David, the election results in four states that voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump.

This is a case, gotten a lot of attention — or the suit, I should say — because there were 17 states, many states' attorneys general signed on, two-thirds of the Republican members of the House.

But now the Supreme Court has thrown it out, with dissent, we should say, by Justices Alito and Thomas.

But, David, what does this say about the state of our politics right now with regard to this election result?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, the court system has hung in there.

And I should pointed out all three Trump-appointed justices sided with the majority on this one.  And it's simply written in the Constitution that state legislatures get to control their own elections.  And the state of Texas doesn't get to tell Michigan and Pennsylvania and other states whether their elections are firm or not.

It was just an outrageous suit from the beginning, one of the desperate ploys Trump has tried.  The shameful thing, of course, is that 126 House Republicans signed onto it and a bunch of attorney generals.  It's a party that has just lost any touch with democracy.

Somebody said on Twitter today, Trumpianity is a very strange religion.  And, fortunately, unlike the legislative branch on the Republican side, the judicial branch has stayed true and faithful to the obvious meaning of the Constitution.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, as you watch this drama unfold, what do you make of it at this point, now that the Supreme Court has weighed in?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, I think we're in the final chapter, Judy.  At least I hope so.

I don't — I don't ever ask that people on the other side agree with me.  I do ask that you believe in what you say, in the position you take.  And this was an example of, I think, base hypocrisy on the part of House Republicans.

They — there are 153 safe Republican House seats in the House of Representatives, that is, that Republicans control or dominant in.  And what they're — they're terrified, the members there, are a primary, being primaried by a Donald Trump supporter who said, you didn't stand with the President.

And the Republicans are in a terrible position at this point.  They desperately want the Trump voters, the 11 million he brought in over four years ago, for example.  But they don't want Donald Trump.  They desperately want Donald Trump gone.

And so — but the last thing in the world they want to do is in any way incur his wrath, for fear he will do to them what he did to Mark Sanford or Jeff Sessions in Alabama, and that is punish them for not being 110 percent Trumpist.

Judy Woodruff:  But, in the process, David, are they doing damage to our democracy?

David Brooks:  Immense damage.

I mean, they're calling an election for millions and millions of people into question.  As we have talked about before, 77 percent of Trump backers think it was a fraudulent election.  So, where do we go going forward?

They're trying to not alienate Trump voters, but the 126 House members, including people like Kevin McCarthy, leaders, are basically telling his story.  And they're telling his [Trump's] comeback story.

They're giving every pretext for him to run again in 2024 and continue to make this Donald Trump's party.  And so if they wanted to get rid of Donald Trump, this was, in my view, the worst way to do it, because they have signed on to the gospel, and now they're more or less stuck with it.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, do you see long-lasting damage here?

Mark Shields:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  Is this something that the country can get through?

Mark Shields:  Yes, beyond the politics of it, Judy, the position taken is undemocratic.  It's hypocritical.  It's just indefensible, and when you're talking about elections.

I mean, I would assume that all Republican House members from Michigan and Wisconsin and Georgia and Pennsylvania who signed on to this suit would summarily resign from the House, because they're saying that they were elected in a criminal election.

It's certainly this illegality that they allege out of thin air didn't — wasn't limited just to the Presidential vote.  So, I just find it beyond — when I say that want the Trump voters without Donald Trump, they can't wait for Donald Trump to be gone.

I mean, how they quiver in fear about him [Trump].  They just — they're terrified of him.  It's not born of affection or anything of the sort or a high regard.  It's born of rank fear.  And that has to be demeaning for every Republican in the House who signed on.

Liz Cheney, the third member of the House leadership from Wyoming, did not, and good for her.

Judy Woodruff:  David, let me ask you both about something else the Congress is not doing, in this instance, and that's a finding a way to come up with relief, help for people suffering in this pandemic.

It's been months and months.  They have come down to the wire.  They figured out a way to fund the government another few days, but they still don't have COVID relief.  What is the holdup here?  And do you see them getting through this?

David Brooks:  Well, this is a foundational problem, too.

If faith in God collapses, then the church collapses.  If faith in our institutions and each other collapses, then the nation collapses.  And so undermining the election is one piece of that.

But unwilling — the unwillingness to recognize the legitimacy of views on the other side is another piece of it.  And we have had five months of people unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of their views and come to meet them halfway.

We finally last week had a legislature behave like it's supposed to behave, where we had eight senators who created a compromise, along with members of the Problem Solvers Caucus in the House.  And they created a very reasonable and, to me, on the merits, a very good compromise on how to get COVID relief.

To their great credit, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said, OK, this is our framework.  Mitch McConnell won't go there.  And so he's not willing to do the work of legislation.  He says that their — that compromise will not work with Republicans.

Well, Mitch McConnell's position won't work with Democrats.  So, that's what politics exists for.  And so it's just another piece of a fundamentally broken political system.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, do you see a way through this?

Mark Shields:  I do, Judy.

I think — it's unthinkable to me that they will not pass a COVID relief bill.  I mean, we're talking about Americans on the eve of Christmas without the resources to feed their children, to heat their homes, to pay their rent.

We're not talking about some giveaway to anybody.  We're not talking about a major stimulus.  We're talking about human survival and human dignity.  And I just can't believe that the Republicans, Mitch McConnell, who is threatened by this, they're all consumed with the February (sic) 5 election in Georgia.

And if you're Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue running in those special Senate elections, and you have to stand up there and defend that the Republican Senate was the stumbling block to sending relief to American families in desperate need at Christmastime?  I don't think so.

So, I think that, finally, urgency and political survival will intervene.

What threatens Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, is, a leader has to be able to deliver his troops.  Right now, he's got a problem, because he doesn't have a majority of his caucus on this side.

And David's right about the bipartisan group meeting, but they represent a threat to leadership.  And I give Speaker Pelosi credit for accepting the act of the bipartisan negotiation.

But Mitch McConnell — if the leader is going to be held hostage by bipartisan groups negotiating a fair deal, then, oh, my goodness, there goes your power, because, in Washington, the perception power is power.  If I think you have power, you do.  And if enough people think you have power, then you do.

And once there are doubts about your power — and I think that's where McConnell finds himself right now.

Judy Woodruff:  David, in the time we have left, I do want to ask you about President-elect Biden.

He's been introducing more of the top people in his administration, the people he wants to serve.  I guess the one who's getting the most criticism or attention that has been critical is Lloyd Austin, the retired Army general, to be secretary of defense.  But there are others.

It's interesting, a number of familiar faces from the Obama administration.  What do you make of the — some of the senior picks he's made so far?

David Brooks:  Well, Joe Biden has picked people he really knows, people he knows well.  He spent a lot of time with Lloyd Austin in Iraq when he was vice President.  He's picked Denis McDonough for the VA, who, by the way, is one of the most fundamentally decent people I have ever covered in public life.

These are, by and large, almost entirely, very good people, but very familiar, Susan Rice over now at the domestic side.  And so they are people he knows, he trusts who will be ready on day one.  And so it's — it is really Obama three, in that sense.

I also share some of the concerns with Lloyd Austin, not for anything having to do with Lloyd Austin and his performance.  But there's a reason we have this rule, this tradition, and also a rule, that you don't have generals switching right over to the defense secretary.  It's about civilian control.

It's about picking people who have distance from the current military brass.  And that is a very solid and sensible rule.  And in the Jim Mattis case, where we also had to get an exemption, that struck me as an extreme circumstance where getting Jim Mattis in there was so important, it was worth breaking the rule.

Now there must be a lot of very qualified people, like Michele Flournoy, who could be Secretary [of] Defense.  I don't quite see why we run this risk of traversing what is a sensible principle.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Mark, what is your assessment of some of these Biden — some of the main Biden picks so far?

Mark Shields:  Well, Judy, I think, in dramatic contrast to his predecessor, Joe Biden was knocked by his political opponents for having spent 47 years in Washington [DC].

He knows these people.  He's worked with them.  He knows their strengths and their weaknesses.  If they turn out to be lemons, it's because Joe Biden picked them, not because they were imposed upon him.  And so I really think that the strength of the nominees is that Joe Biden certifies them, validates them.  And that's the accountability of a presidential leader.

And on the whole, I remained impressed by them.  I would point out that any money that's left over from the stimulus, the original bailout on COVID, will be in the stewardship of Janet Yellen, as Secretary of Treasury.  And I think there's somebody who will spend it wisely and well and quite humanely.

Judy Woodruff:  And on that note, we thank you both, Mark Shields, David Brooks.

Have a great weekend.

Mark Shields:  Thank you.

POST VOTE 2020 - Voter's Being Duped

Once again, Republics prove they no longer support democracy.

"How voters are being ‘duped’ by Trump’s election challenges" PBS NewsHour 12/10/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A lawsuit filed this week by the Texas Attorney General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to delay certification of election results in four states won by President-elect Joe Biden.  President Trump and 17 states, all with Republicans attorneys general, signed on to the case, which experts say has little chance of being heard by the justices.  Judy Woodruff Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan to discuss.

 

 

"Supreme Court denies Texas attempt to overturn election results" PBS NewsHour 12/11/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In a closely watched decision the U.S. Supreme Court late Friday denied an attempt by the state of Texas, supported by a large number of Republicans, to overturn the election results and President-elect Joe Biden's victory in four states.  Judy Woodruff spoke with John Yang, Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor to discuss.

CONGRESS & COVID RELIEF - Deadlines Loom Yet Nothing Happening

"Congress nears economic aid deal as critical deadlines approach" PBS NewsHour 12/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With the COVID-19 pandemic surging and some economic relief set to expire soon, Congress is nearing a deal on hundreds of billions of dollars in new aid.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to walk us through what's on the table.

 

 

"Under pressure, lawmakers scramble to provide economic relief" PBS NewsHour 12/09/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lawmakers on Wednesday continued to tangle over the details of a bipartisan economic relief bill during the pandemic, even as two-thirds of Americans say the federal government needs to do more to address economic hardships created by the coronavirus, according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff with the latest.

 

 

"‘Frustrated and fractured’ Congress remains at an impasse on COVID relief" PBS NewsHour 12/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  There was a swirl of activity in Washington, D.C.  Friday from the U.S. Capitol to the Supreme Court.  Congress remains at a stalemate over a bipartisan relief bill, while the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit brought by Texas that challenged the validity of election results in four states won by President-elect Joe Biden.  Judy Woodruff spoke with John Yang and Lisa Desjardins to discuss.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Trump's "Other Good People" Washington D.C.

"Multiple people stabbed after thousands gather for pro-Trump demonstrations in Washington" by Emily Davies, Rachel Weiner, Clarence Williams, Marissa J. Lang, Jessica Contrera - The Washington Post 12/12/2020

 

Thousands of maskless rally-goers who refuse to accept the results of the election turned downtown Washington into a falsehood-filled spectacle Saturday, two days before the electoral college will make the President’s loss official.

In smaller numbers than their gathering last month, they roamed from the Capitol to the Mall and back again, seeking inspiration from speakers who railed against the Supreme Court, Fox News and President-elect Joe Biden.  The crowds cheered for recently pardoned former national security adviser Michael Flynn, marched with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and stood in awe of a flyover from what appeared to be Marine One.

But at night, the scene became violent.  At least four people were stabbed near Harry’s Bar at 11th and F streets NW, a gathering point for the Proud Boys, a male-chauvinist organization with ties to white nationalism.

The victims were hospitalized and suffered possibly life-threatening injuries, D.C. fire spokesman Doug Buchanan said.  It was not immediately clear with which groups the attackers or the injured might have been affiliated.

The violence escalated after an evening of faceoffs with counterprotesters that took place near Harry’s, Black Lives Matter Plaza, Franklin Square, and other spots around downtown.

At first, officers in riot gear successfully kept the two sides apart, even as the groups splintered and roamed.  In helmets and bulletproof vests, Proud Boys marched through downtown in military-like rows, shouting “move out” and “1776!”  They became increasingly angry as they wove through streets and alleys, only to find police continuously blocking their course with lines of bikes.

“Both sides of the aisle hate you now.  Congratulations,” a Proud Boy shouted at the officers.

But before long, the agitators determined to find trouble were successful — and posturing quickly turned into punching, kicking and wrestling.

Again and again, officers swarmed, pulling the instigators apart, firing chemical irritants and forming lines between the sides.  At Harry’s Bar, an ambulance arrived, but the extent of injuries was unknown.

Each time a fight was de-escalated, another soon began in a different part of town.

. D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham made a brief appearance in the chaos, telling protesters: “We’re doing the best we can.”

In an interview, Newsham said police units were deployed across downtown to keep the groups apart.  He said smaller segments of people who splintered from larger gatherings seemed “intent on conflict.”

D.C. police said that as of 9 p.m., 23 people were arrested Saturday, including 10 who were charged with misdemeanor assaults, six with assaulting police officers and four with rioting.  Police said one person had an illegal Taser.

Two officers were hospitalized with moderate injuries suffered during clashes at 16th and K streets NW, police said.  In all, police said eight people — including the four stabbing victims and the two officers — were injured.

The scuffles seemed poised to continue late into the night, as the black-and-yellow-clad Proud Boys knocked back beers, whiskey, and White Claws.  Some stole a Black Lives Matter banner, paraded it down M Street NW, then stomped on it.

The group received recognition from Trump himself at a Presidential debate in September, when he told them to “stand back and stand by.”

As the Proud Boys appeared at rallies earlier in the day Saturday, Trump cheered on all of the supporters who showed up to falsely claim that the election was stolen from him, tweeting “Wow! Thousands of people forming in Washington (D.C.) for Stop the Steal.  Didn’t know about this, but I’ll be seeing them! #MAGA.”

The majority-White crowd ranged from gray-haired men and women in red hats to children in wagons, one of whom chanted “100 more years!”

As the nation watches Biden’s transition, rising coronavirus cases and vaccine development, Trump’s attempts to maintain power have also been playing out.  To his most dedicated supporters, the President’s megaphone is as loud as ever.  He has continued to falsely claim the election was stolen from him, prompting his faithful to return to the nation’s capital.

Flynn appeared on the steps of the Supreme Court to encourage them to maintain hope, despite the justices’ dismissal Friday night of Trump’s long-shot bid to overturn election results.

“Don’t get bent out of shape,” Flynn said.  “There are still avenues … We’re fighting with faith, and we’re fighting with courage.”

After Flynn finished speaking, he was chased by shouting admirers who cheered: “We love you, general!”  Bodyguards tried to keep the fans at bay as Flynn kept smiling.

The speakers painted a picture of a country in a battle between good and evil, in which God himself would ultimately ensure Trump remained in power.  Sebastian Gorka, a former foreign policy adviser to Trump, said that when he heard the Supreme Court had dismissed an election case from Texas on Friday night, he told himself to “stop, take a deep breath, count to 10, read the Bible and pray.”

“We, thanks to our lord and savior, have already won,” Gorka claimed.

A priest featured on a Jumbotron prayed to “place thyself at the head of this army of thy children.”

Ruth Hillary, 58, a pastor from California, listened while holding up her “Stop the Steal” sign.  She said she will continue to protest as long as the President and vice President believe she should.

“If President Trump accepts it and Vice President Pence accepts it, then we will accept it,” she said.  “But right now, this is a Godly protest.”

Jones, the Infowars host known for his denial of the Sandy Hook massacre, alternated between speaking about God and the future President: “Joe Biden is a globalist, and Joe Biden will be removed one way or another,” he said from a stage on the Mall.

Trump backer and MyPillow founder Mike Lindell argued that “Fox [News] was in on it,” while podcaster David Harris Jr. riled the crowd by suggesting that if there were a civil war, “we’re the ones with all the guns,” he said.

All day, the masses nodded along to falsehoods, prayed for the country and cheered beside one another without masks.

D.C. police did not enforce mask rules or issue fines to those who ignored social distancing guidelines, even as the region faces an unprecedented spike in coronavirus cases.  Dozens of D.C. police officers have tested positive in the weeks since the last pro-Trump rally in November.  As of Friday, 94 remained in quarantine.  Police have declined to draw a direct link between demonstrations and the spike in infections among officers.

On Saturday, local activists were frustrated with police tactics aimed at maintaining peace.  For part of the evening, officers formed intermittent blockades at the perimeter of Black Lives Matter Plaza, essentially penning in counterprotesters while Trump supporters were free to roam.

“They can move around however they please,” said Constance Young, 37.  “We’re not the ones not wearing masks and spreading COVID.”

D.C. residents have expressed concern that the influx of maskless protesters puts the entire city at risk, especially workers in restaurants and hotels.  Activists flooded the inboxes of city officials, asking them to shut down businesses that allow people to congregate without masks.  They called hotels to ask that they refuse to host those planning to attend Saturday’s rallies, with little success.

Protesters still came in from around the country, with family, friends and flags in tow.

David Dumiter, 33, and his niece Monica Stanciu drove eight hours from Dearborn, Mich., to be at the Washington Monument on Saturday.

Dumiter, an airplane mechanic who said he has been unemployed since the pandemic decimated air travel, said he knew the Supreme Court had blocked any legal path to reverse the results of the election.  That didn’t change his mind about showing up Saturday.  The President was still pushing, so he would, too.

“We’re not going to cave in,” Dumiter said.

That sentiment seemed to fuel the pro-Trump groups that stretched their demonstrations late into the night, even after every fight was broken up by police and multiple arrests were made.

At Harry’s, a half-dozen Proud Boys marched through the streets, chanting, “all lives matter!”  They were cheered on by other members of the group who joined them at 11th and E streets NW, flashing the three-fingered white-supremacist salute.

Moments later, the crowd turned and converged on a corner, shoving and jostling as the chant rose to a fever pitch.  Men pushed each other as they tried to film what was happening in the center of the chaos.

More than 100 D.C. police officers swarmed the street.  Police with canisters of chemical spray rushed into the fray, pushing people aside and separating the crowd.  Two people lying on the sidewalk were transferred into ambulances.

But an hour later, more than 150 demonstrators were still there, chanting and drinking in the rain.  The President was refusing to concede the election, and they were refusing to go home.

Joe Heim, Justin Wm.  Moyer, Meagan Flynn, Paul Schwartzman, Kyle Swenson, and Peter Hermann contributed to this report.

OPINION - Damage Done By Trump, Claims of Election Fraud

"Shields and Brooks on the damage done by Trump’s claims of election fraud" PBS NewsHour 12/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the Biden team’s transition to the White House and the impact of Trump’s election fraud claims.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now it's time for the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

I want to pick up with what we were hearing, Mark, from Congressman Riggleman of Virginia, talking about putting party over country.  That was something he wasn't comfortable with, and talking about conspiracy theories, all of this stemming from President Trump insisting that he's won the election, that the election was completely riddled with fraud.

We're now hearing a number of Republicans calling for other Republicans to call the President out.  How much damage is being done by what is going on right now, Mark?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I can't calculate it, Judy, in concrete terms, other than to say it's dangerous.

I mean, America has been the envy of the world.  It's been an example to bring millions of people to our shores, a free and open democracy, where every voice is heard.  And to have the elected leader of that nation charge that it is not that, that it's corrupt, that it's criminal, is damaging beyond my calculation.

And I just — I think — I hope it's reparable, but we will — it will be a while before we find out just how much damage has been done.

Judy Woodruff:  David, how deep is the damage that's being done?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, 77 percent of Republicans or Trump backers say the election was stolen by fraud, according to a Monmouth poll.  A lot of those same people don't believe in manmade climate change.  A lot of those same people don't believe that masks can save your life.

So, there's a section of a country that's become detached from reality and, under Trump paranoia, has become a style, a resurgent style.

I wrote a column about this a week ago.  And I tried to theorize that this derives out of a sense of menace and threat, that people feel existentially unsafe, and so they grasp for conspiracy theories, because it makes them feel powerful, that they see the truth.  It makes them feel agency.  They can expose the evil cabals.

And I think there's some truth to that, that people — a lot of people just feel very scared economically, socially, racially.  And out of that fear comes paranoia.

But I got a lot of e-mails from people.  Like, I got one from a guy in Palo Alto.  And he said, the neurosurgeon down my block believes all this stuff.  So, where's his anxiety?  And I'd say, I don't know the answer to that question.

But there is a lot of anxiety.  There's a lot of fear, and out of that has arisen an entire industry of paranoia-mongering.  The Newsmax, the far right-wing media TV station, their viewership has gone up 20 times since the election.  So, that paranoia is pretty deep and pretty widespread right now.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, we are — as a news organization, the "NewsHour" is trying to understand this.  I know other news organizations are as well.

We want to understand the origin of this and how deep it goes and how long-lasting.  How much does it matter that we try to tackle this right now?  Is it — I guess what I'm trying to understand, is this a flight of fancy, that we're just living through a brief period, and we're going to wake up in a few weeks or months, and we're going to be past it, or is this with us for a long time?

Mark Shields:  Well, no, I mean, I think David put his finger on it, as he does regularly.

This also has a commercial aspect to it.  I mean, there is a profit in upping your viewership if you're spinning paranoid theories to your listeners and explaining that the other side — you never argue on the merits, Judy.  What it comes down to is, the other side is evil.

I mean, that is the first thing I learned when I came to Washington, that you don't question the motives of somebody on the other side, that they love their country and their children as much as you do.  And they may be mistaken, they may be ill-informed, they may be illogical, but you don't start off with, they're evil.

Well, that is — that's where these arguments begin, that it's a sinister, criminal collusion all out to get the American way, to destroy the American way.  It is anything we can do to rebut it.

And one hopes that the new administration, with a fresh start, will be a start in that direction.  And the fact that the President — that his predecessor is now receding in the rearview mirror, inevitably, I think, has to be helpful.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, I guess my question is, is his predecessor disappearing in the rearview mirror?  He's raised over $200 million and counting since the Election Day for his legal defense fund.

But we are now learning that money, most of that money can go toward his new political venture, whatever it may be.  President Trump may be here for a long time to come.

David Brooks:  He's certainly talking like he will run again in 2024.

And Josh Hawley, the senator from Missouri, said that, if Trump runs again, he would endorse him and expect him to win.  And he might.  He might win the nomination again.  So, I don't think we have seen — maybe not seen the last of him.

The problem with all the paranoia and the conspiracy theory is, you can't talk people out of it.  The psychological research is super clear on this, that if you try to fact-check people when they have incorrect facts, you only entrench their belief, that you can't talk people out of an emotional state.

And so I think the two things that we can do is try to have contact, more contact between, frankly, those of us in the expert class, who tend to live in blue America, in the metro areas, and people in the rural country.

COVID doesn't allow that.  But traveling around the country is a good way to alleviate a lot of the barriers between us.  And, second, somehow, life has to become more secure for a lot of people.  And I'm hoping the administration, the new administration, will pass legislation that makes life economically more secure, so that sense of existential anxiety goes away.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, we can certainly hope not only the economy gets better, that we will all be able to travel more, get around, see our fellow Americans, family and friends in the not-too-distant future.

But, Mark, let's talk about Joe Biden, the President-elect.  Since the last time I saw the two of you, two weeks ago, before Thanksgiving, he's named more of the senior members of his team, his Secretary of State Tony Blinken, his Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, a number of others.

What do you make of the team so far?

Mark Shields:  Well, I would say, the reviews, Judy, that are in are quite positive.

I mean, they reflect Joe Biden.  They're experienced.  They believe in public service.  They're people whom he knows, again, unlike his unnamed predecessor, who chose a Secretary of State because he had a very active passport and had traveled a lot and looked like a secretary of state.  He's choosing somebody with whom he's worked for close to a generation, experienced people, people who believe in public service.

And I guess dully competent would be the unflattering observation.  But I'm impressed.  And you mentioned a Janet Yellen.  I think that is a 10 strike.  I mean, to have the chairman of the — former chairman of the Fed, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers of her stature and, figuratively speaking, and just her values as Secretary of the Treasury, I think is just awfully important, especially with Joe Biden, who has great experience in foreign policy and — but not deep in financial matters.

So, I'm encouraged by them.

Judy Woodruff:  David, what's your take on these folks Joe Biden is naming?

David Brooks:  Yes, I'm super encouraged too.

It's Biden being Biden.  It's Biden people — picking people he's comfortable with, people he knows, and people who you could wake up in the middle of night, and they could do the job.  Janet Yellen is super well-prepared to be Treasury Secretary, Jake Sullivan, a rising young star in the policy world.  Jared Bernstein has been on this program many times in the economic world.

Neera Tanden will be our flashiest OMB Director in history, but someone who's been around and who just knows the job.  And so you can rest assured that these are people who have experience and often served in the job right below them in the Obama administration.  So, we can expect fewer own goals under them.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, we're seeing, Mark, a number of women put into — or nominated for prominent roles, powerful roles in the new administration.

But there's still some interest groups out there saying there's not enough diversity here, for example, NAACP saying, where are the blacks in senior Cabinet jobs?

How much pressure is Joe Biden under to name a more diverse — more diverse leaders in — to his team — for his team?

Mark Shields:  Well, I mean, the diversity so far, Judy, I mean, I don't think anybody can make the case that it's for diversity's sake.  Everybody who's been chosen is somebody who qualified and is qualified for the position to which they were named, irrespective of race or gender or whatever.

I think that, as far as women is concerned, I mean, Joe Biden's campaign was run by Anita Dunn and Jen O'Malley Dillon, two women.  I mean, he's used to having women.  His sister Valerie ran all his other early campaigns for the Senate.  So, that is — that's a natural.  That's not window dressing.  That's a very natural development.

I think that the most important voice to Joe Biden has to be that of Congressman Jim Clyburn.  And Jim Clyburn has been critical of the paucity of African Americans in the Cabinet.

Joe Biden came crawling out of Iowa, limping out of New Hampshire.  He was dead on arrival in South Carolina, until African American voters, led by — led by Jim Clyburn, endorsed him and made him the nominee.  So, if he's going to heed any voice, the voice of Jim Clyburn is the voice that Joe Biden will be responsive to, and legitimately so.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, how much pressure do you think Biden is under to name — get some more diverse figures in this Cabinet in top jobs?  And how much does it matter?

David Brooks:  Well, pressure implies resistance.  I don't think there's any resistance.

I think Joe Biden wants to have a diverse Cabinet.  He wants to have a Cabinet that looks like America, in part because it's a better Cabinet idea.  You have — the bigger diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds, the better decisions that get made.

And I don't think he will have any problem finding African Americans.  He's already found Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who's the — his choice for the U.N. Secretary — our Ambassador to the U.N.  And she's someone who has a long time career in the Foreign Service, somebody who ran the Africa desk under Obama.  I'm sure he will find many more people under that.

I think it's important to have vast diversity.  I hate to — when it gets reduced to a demographic label and a person is filling in a slot.  The person is the person.  And all the people he's picked so far and in the future are A-team.  They're super talented.

And so I'd hate to see it get down — it appear, even appear like it's just because of somebody's skin color or anything, because I don't think it ever is going to be that.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, he's saying he's got more to name.  He said you will know who they are in the next few weeks, and he said you can judge it then.

So, we will keep talking about it, keep looking at it.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  Thank you both, David Brooks, Mark Shields.  Thank you.

Mark Shields: Thanks, Judy.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Biden Transition Offically Starts

"Transition process formally under way.  GSA action allows briefings, funding for Biden team." by U-T News Services, San Diego Union-Tribune 11/21/2020

NOTE:  This is copied from the e-newspaper, therefore no link to article.

President Donald Trump’s government on Monday authorized president-elect Joe Biden to begin a formal transition process after Michigan certified Biden as its winner, a strong sign that the President’s last-ditch bid to overturn the results of the election was coming to an end.

Trump did not concede, and vowed to persist with efforts to change the vote.  But the President said on Twitter on Monday night that he accepted the decision by Emily Murphy, the administrator of the General Services Administration [GSA], to allow a transition to proceed.

In his tweet, Trump said that he had told his officials to begin “initial protocols” involving the handoff to Biden “in the best interest of our country.”

Murphy’s designation of Biden as the apparent victor provides the incoming administration with federal funds and resources and clears the way for the president-elect’s advisers to coordinate with Trump administration officials.

The decision from Murphy came after several additional senior Republican lawmakers, as well as leading figures from business and world affairs, denounced the delay in allowing the peaceful transfer of power to begin, a holdup that Biden and his top aides said was threatening national security and the ability of the incoming administration to effectively plan for combating the coronavirus pandemic.

And it followed a key court decision in Pennsylvania, where the state’s Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the Trump campaign and the President’s Republican allies, stating that roughly 8,000 ballots with signature or date irregularities must be counted.

In Michigan, the statewide canvassing board, with two Republicans and two Democrats, voted, 3-0, to approve the results, with one Republican abstaining.  It officially delivered to Biden a key battleground that Trump had wrested away from Democrats four years ago, and rebuffed the President’s legal and political efforts to overturn the results.

By Monday evening, as Biden moved ahead with plans to fill out his Cabinet, broad sectors of the nation had delivered a blunt message to the President: His campaign to stay in the White House was nearing the end.

Murphy said she made her decision Monday because of “recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results,” most likely referring to the certification of votes by election officials in Michigan and a nearly unbroken string of court decisions that have rejected Trump’s challenges in several states.

In conversations earlier in the day with top aides — including Mark Meadows, the White House Chief of Staff; Pat Cipollone, the White House Counsel; and Jay Sekulow, the President’s personal lawyer — Trump was told that the transition needed to begin.  He did not need to say the word “concede,” they told him, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions.  But they emphasized that in the United States, transitions are hugely important.

Some of the advisers drafted a statement for the President to issue.  But Trump continued to solicit opinions from associates, including Rudy Giuliani, who told him there were still legal avenues to pursue, the people briefed on the discussions said.

In the end, Trump did not put out a statement, but aides said the tone of the proposed statement was similar to his tweets in the evening, in which he appeared to take credit for Murphy’s decision to allow the transition to a new administration to begin.

“Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail!” he wrote.  “Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.”

In a letter to Biden, Murphy rebutted Trump’s assertion that he had directed her to make the decision, saying that “I came to my decision independently, based on the law and available facts.” She said she was “never directly or indirectly pressured by any executive branch official — including those who work at the White House or the GSA.”

“I do not think that an agency charged with improving federal procurement and property management should place itself above the constitutionally-based election process,” she wrote, defending her delay by saying that she did not want to get ahead of the constitutional process of counting votes and picking a President.

Murphy said she had received threats online, by phone, and by mail “directed at my safety, my family, my staff, and even my pets in an effort to coerce me into making this determination prematurely.”

“Even in the face of thousands of threats, I always remained committed to upholding the law,” the letter said.

She did not describe Biden as the “president-elect” in her letter, even as she said the transition could begin.

One associate with knowledge of Murphy’s thinking said that she always anticipated signing off on the transition but that she needed a defensible rationale to do so in the absence of a concession from Trump; the pro-Biden developments in Michigan and Pennsylvania, as well as in Georgia, provided a clear justification for moving ahead.

That decision was part of a cascade of events over the last several days that appeared to signal the end of Trump’s attempts to resist the will of the voters.

Large counties in Pennsylvania were formalizing Biden’s victory in the state.  And in a major break with the President, General Motors announced it would no longer back the administration’s efforts to nullify California’s fuel economy rules.

On Capitol Hill, most of Trump’s Republican allies had stood by his side for the past two weeks as he [Trump] tried to overturn the vote.  But on Monday, some of the Senate’s most senior Republicans sharply urged Murphy to allow the transition to proceed.

Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who is retiring, issued his second call in recent days for a prompt transition.

“Since it seems apparent that Joe Biden will be the president-elect, my hope is that President Trump will take pride in his considerable accomplishments, put the country first and have a prompt and orderly transition to help the new administration succeed,” said Alexander, a close friend of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) the Senate majority leader.  “When you are in public life, people remember the last thing you do.”

Earlier in the day, Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, both Republicans, issued statements breaking from Trump and calling for Biden to begin receiving coronavirus and national security briefings.

“At some point, the 2020 election must end,” Capito said.

The pressure on Trump extended beyond the political sphere.  More than 100 business leaders sent a letter to the administration on Monday asking it to facilitate a transition, and a group of Republican national security experts implored Republican members of Congress to demand that Trump concede.

One of the President’s staunchest supporters, Stephen Schwarzman, the chief executive of the private equity firm Blackstone, did not sign the business leaders’ letter but said in a statement that “the outcome is very certain today and the country should move on.”

The New York Times and The Washington Post contributed to this report.

VOTE 2020 - Rundown Sunday 11/08/2020

"Vice President-elect Harris’ win brings many historic firsts" PBS NewsHour 11/08/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Kamala Harris gave her victory speech wearing all white on Saturday night after her glass ceiling-shattering win as Vice President-elect.  Barbara Perry, Director of Presidential Studies and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the historic nature of Harris’ election and the road it took to get here.

 

 

"Dems won the race but the GOP will control the presidency" PBS NewsHour 11/08/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are headed to the White House, Democrats who were hoping to increase their margins in the House and take control of the Senate, failed to strengthen their position in Congress.  Jeff Greenfield joins to discuss the election results and how the Senate runoff in Georgia will determine the future of Biden’s presidency.

VOTE 2020 - Rundown Saturday 11/07/2020

"Lack of evidence make Trump’s legal challenge an uphill battle" PBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has vowed to challenge the election results, which have declared Joe Biden as the President-Elect.  The legal challenges began well before Election Day with lawsuits over mail-in voting and which ballots were “legally” cast.  Guy-Uriel Charles, professor of law at Duke University and co-director of the Center of Law, Race and Politics joins to discuss.

 

 

"Biden will take over a deeply divided nation in crisis" PBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With news outlets from the Associated Press to Fox News calling the election in favor of Joe Biden on Saturday, President Trump’s camp continued their legal efforts to contest the election results, and many Republican leaders remained silent.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss Trump’s strategy, as well as Kamala Harris’ historic win as the first woman of color to be elected Vice President.

 

 

"Georgia to be ‘center of the American political universe’ during recount, runoff election" PBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Nearly 5 million ballots were cast in Georgia, where razor-thin margins in the presidential election mean the state will enter a recount process in the coming weeks, and a January runoff will decide the fate of both the state’s Senate seats.  Georgia Public Broadcasting’s Rickey Bevington joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss why, between now and January’s runoff election, all eyes will be on Georgia.

 

 

"‘More lawsuits are coming:’ Trump’s lawyers layout plans as AP calls race for Biden" PBS NewsHour 11/07/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Shortly after the Associated Press and other TV networks call Pennsylvania and the entire race for Joe Biden, President Trump’s lawyers lay out their plans for a long legal fight over the results.  NewsHour’s Dan Bush joins from Philadelphia to discuss the moment Biden’s victory was called and the Trump campaign's plan of action.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks on Vote 2020

"Shields and Brooks on election results, national divisions" PBS NewsHour 11/06/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including surprises from a very close presidential election whose result is still unknown, which groups of voters increased their support for President Trump, political challenges for the Democratic Party and what national divisions say about the future of the country.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, hello to both of you.

We don't have a result yet, but the votes are being counted like mad.  We know the results in a lot of states.

We're waiting.

David, what do you make of what we know so far?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, if ever there was a campaign that was going to be a blowout, I thought this was it.  I thought we had an unpopular President that people were ready to get rid of.  I expected a large margin.  And I was wrong.  It's a 2.8 percentage margin nationally.

And so I think what we have learned is that we a very evenly divided nation, two groups of people in non-overlapping universes.  For a time, it seemed — and I think people in both camps thought, well, the people on my team could eventually crush the people on the other team, and my team will get to rule.

I think we now have to face reality.  That's just never going to happen.  The other side is never going to go away.  And we have got to find a way to live with each other.

And so, to me, that's the biggest takeaway of where we are right now.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, divided country.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Divided country, Judy.

But if you look at it in historical perspective, in the last century, only three presidential challengers, nominees have defeated an elected President seeking reelection.  And it's a pretty impressive group, if you think about it.  It was Franklin Roosevelt, it was Ronald Reagan, and it was Bill Clinton, all of whom were at least two-term presidents.  One was a four-term president, and I think history would say successful Presidents.

So, Joe Biden joins a pretty awesome group of people.  He will end up, in my judgment, with a 52-47 popular vote percentage, decisively, and decisively in the Electoral College.

David's right.  It was close.  We are divided.

What surprised me, as much as anything, was the loyalty and the enthusiasm of Donald Trump's constituency.  They turned out in surprisingly impressive numbers.  And Donald Trump, if he got over his hissy fits and sort of the silly actions since the election, could take credit for the Republicans picking up House seats in 2020 and retaining their majority in the Senate.

With the exception of Susan Collins, every other Republican Senate candidate who won, won with Donald Trump.  Susan Collins had a 17-point split in Maine.  That was the only ticket-splitting state in the country.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, I know you have also — you have had a chance to look inside some of these numbers, why voters voted, who voted how, and why people voted the way they did.

I mean, even as we're waiting for the final numbers, what does that tell you about the country, about who we are?

David Brooks:  Well, I mean, the surprises were the gains that Republicans made among Latinos and African-Americans.  Donald Trump had a higher share of the non-white vote than any Republican in 60 years, as he said.

And that was a surprise to me.  He doubled his support among the LGBTQ community.  And so a lot of people are voting by different narratives.  There is a certain narrative that he's a racist and that he's just a force for racism.  I think there's a lot of truth to that narrative, but a lot of people clearly have different narratives in their head.

And so I think people — we should be humble about generalizing across groups of people, especially people we have never met.  And so I think that.

The second thing is that the Republican Party really is the party of the — of people without college degrees, much more so than ever before.  We saw swings of moderates, swings of college-educated suburbanites to the Democratic Party.

And I think the Republican Party can — if they're going to be — feel good about this election, they can see the potential of a future party as a multiracial working-class party.  If they can win support across racial lines among those without college degrees, then that's a very viable party, and they should really focus all their attention on, what can we do for people without college degrees of all groups?

Judy Woodruff:  What about that, Mark?

And, as you look at how people voted, which way they went, what do you see?  What does it tell you about us?

Mark Shields:  Picking up on what David said, you can't make generalizations about people you do know, David.  You have to make generalizations about people you don't know.

(LAUGHTER)

But the point is that David touched on it on the white blue-collar male vote, one out of three voters in the country.

This was the backbone of the Democratic coalition that elected Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and Jack Kennedy.  It was the message of the entire New Deal, Fair Deal, and New Frontier, that government had a responsibility to guarantee jobs, that you weren't the nation of self-reliance and independence completely, especially in the face of a Great Depression.

But the important thing to remember is that the 346 firefighters who walked into the jaws of death and the fires of hell on September 11 to save strangers that never met and gave their lives so doing were white non-college males, for the most part.

Those who volunteer to defend our country, whether it's joining the Marine Corps or the armed forces, and fight and die, it's their families, and they're the families of white, overwhelmingly white, not-college-educated males.

And the Democrats' problem, I think, is one of attitude as much as it is of platform.  I mean, the Democrats, that were once a shot and a beer party have become a Sauvignon blanc party arguing about which wine is more sensitive.

And I really — I really do think this is a problem for Democrats.  And they have to — they have to approach with some humility this very important constituency, which Donald Trump beat them almost 2-1 and beat Joe Biden, I mean, who is really probably the personification of what the New Deal was, in terms of personal style, personal values, and personality.

So, he wasn't beating an elitist Ivy Leaguer.  So I think that's a real problem for Democrats.  And I would add the Hispanics.  I think we have learned painfully, did Democrats, that they're there anything but a monolithic constituency, as most proved by the results in Florida.

Judy Woodruff:  I want to turn you, David, to the president's reaction so far to the results of the lashing out, the accusations of fraud and the rest of it.

How much does all that matter?  I mean, does the delay in announcing — in knowing the result, how much will that matter in the end?

David Brooks:  Yes, well, I thought the President in his press conference last night was awful, horrific, if we weren't used to him, but also wan.  He looked like he was not really fighting; he was just constructing rationalizations for a man who can admit that he can lose at anything.

And I think I have been heartened, I mean, as we heard from William and others, that there is a lot of crazy stuff going around on the Internet, a lot of conspiracy theories, as if the Democrats have this elaborate vote-rigging thing in which they lose the Senate.  Like, it doesn't pass even surface plausibility.

But what has heartened me is that, so far, our system seems to be holding better than many people feared.  A lot of Republicans are happy to see Trump go and are ushering statements or just non-statements and not getting on this train.

And state legislators in places like Pennsylvania have said, we're not getting involved in this.  And the nightmare scenario was that you would get competing slates of electors from places like Pennsylvania.  But that would require the complicity of a lot of the politicians in these states.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  And, so far, they don't want to get involved.

So, that's — I think the system is doing way better than we could have feared.

Judy Woodruff:  You do have Lindsey Graham out there echoing what the President is saying.

David Brooks:  Oh, yes, for sure, there are some.  And FOX is divided.  The all-important FOX News seems to be divided.

But, so far, we have not seen violence that much in the streets.  So far, it looks like calmer than many predicted.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, what's your — what is your take on the President and how he is reacting so far and what it says?

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  David, he's younger and more optimistic.

I have to say, I haven't found that many good Germans among the Republicans who are resisting the — just think, Judy.  The President, before the largest audience in the history of humankind, according to him, took an oath to solidly preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I just wish he would reflect on that for 30 seconds.  What he is doing is undermining confidence and trust in our — in each other, in our country, in our ways.

I have been incredibly impressed by the quality of the secretaries of state who have come on, almost overwhelmingly women, Republicans and Democrats, who have explained what they're doing, have done it in a thoughtful and informed and intelligent way.  I have been impressed by the seriousness of purpose that the people have taken in counting.

But I'm waiting for the Republicans.  I'm waiting for Rob Portman of Ohio, who everybody says is such a good guy.  I'm waiting for him to stand up and say, no, Mr.  President, this is wrong.

And we're hearing from the usual suspects.  Lindsey Graham makes Tonto look like an independent spirit when it comes to President Trump.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, here at the end, I mean, you're not worried about the fact that — I mean, we don't know how long it's going to take.  I mean, there may be a call tonight, for all we know, but it is taking days.

Do you have concern that leaves — casts a pall over this somehow?

David Brooks:  Well, for sure.

I mean, there will be a large number of Americans who — if Biden wins, who think Joe Biden is an illegitimate President.  We're not — we shouldn't pretend that we're ending an age of polarization.

I'm just hopeful.  We're having a different sort of polarization.

Donald Trump was a cultural figure.  He was not a policy person, not a government person.  It was always: My tribe is good.  Your tribe is evil.

And so we have had that kind of polarization.  I'm hopeful, if Donald Trump is off the scene, at least there won't be a guy at the top waging a holy war against another identity group every single day.

And so I'm sticking with my blind and completely unrealistic optimism, no matter what's Mark says.

Judy Woodruff:  All right, we're going to let you do that, David Brooks.  And we're all going to wait and see what happens.

David Brooks, Mark Shields, thank you.