Wallace started the interview asking, after the Electoral College votes for the Biden-Harris ticket, "will you stop contesting this election?" Here's Scalise doing his best to not answer.
Well, Chris, look, there has been a lot of contesting of the election in multiple states. The president's done it, other groups have done it too, and that's because of the concerns people had. When you look at massive vote swings days and weeks after the election, millions of people feel very frustrated with this process. And, look, there -- there's going to ultimately be a conclusion to this, but for now I think, if you just discount the fact that millions of people wonder, why is it that in some states Florida, Texas, large states, they had the results by 10:00 that night and then in other states it was days and weeks. And during those days and weeks you saw massive vote swings that just seed a lot of distrust. That's got to get resolved. We've got to start getting back to the point where we can resolve elections on the night.
At this point, I would have asked Rep. Scalise to name a single state that had a "massive vote swing" in the 'weeks' since the election. Wallace didn't ask that, but he did push back.
But -- but -- but -- but -- but -- but, Congressman Scalise -- Congressman Scalise -- There -- the reason that there were these votes swings was because in a lot of states they weren't able to count the millions of mail-in ballots until election night. And everybody knew that -- and, in fact, it happened in Florida, it went the other way. They were able to count the mail-in ballots early, so it favored Biden early and then it swung to Trump. In Pennsylvania, they had to count the mail-in ballots late, so it started pro-Trump and then it swung to Biden.
Now, that's an opportunity for Scalise to take a deep breath, grab himself by the whatever, and admit that Wallace was right - that yes, everyone knew that the absentee ballots were going to go for Biden and that Election Day voting would favor Trump. Did he do that? Of course he didn't.
Well, Chris, first of all, look at New York, right? The Claudia Tenney race in New York. She's up by 12 votes. Just the other day they found 55 votes in a desk drawer. You know, this kind of stuff – people look at this and go, what is going on? This is the United States of America, it's not Venezuela. That's what gets people irate. You know, why is this still going on?
"Well, Steve, " I would have said, "what on earth does New York's 22nd Congressional District race have to do with the presidential race, the Electoral College, or the ongoing assault on our country by the Republicans? That's what gets people irate. You know, why is this still going on?"
Wallace waited until after Scalise finished his thought, including bringing in the Georgia runoffs (they all do that, the GOP) in a way that makes no sense.
Let's have a chain of custody. Let's get back to making sure that everybody can have full confidence in our elections. But just to look the other way and say, hey, look, you know, three weeks later they pulled -- they pulled the corner like -- people are very frustrated with this.
There's still an election in Georgia on January 5th. And three weeks from now, we need to encourage people to go back out, but also to have a system where there's going to be more confidence than what they saw back in November.
"But- but- but- but- but- (I would have said) - Congressman Scalise, wait - wait - what is going to be different in Georgia runoff? Early voting starts tomorrow. There have been hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots requested. Has Georgia changed any rules? What's different now that will give people more confidence in voting again? And what do you say about this tweet from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich?"
The -- the Supreme Court threw it out without even listening to it. This was a lawsuit that was going to throw out the -- the votes in four swing states, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. I mean you were talking about disenfranchising the 10 million Biden voters who supported the president- elect in those four states. Do feel comfortable throwing out millions of votes of your fellow Americans?
Scalise then pretended he didn't want the outcome he wanted.
Well, nobody wants any votes thrown out, Chris. And, the fact, the 70 plus million votes that are also at stake for President Trump.
They don't want any votes thrown out, except the ones that went for Biden and not Trump. We know what, and so do they. Wallace pointed out "but that's what your lawsuit would have done, sir," even as Scalise tried to pretend that wouldn't be the case.
Well, no. What -- if you look at the Texas lawsuit, what it was saying if, there are some states that didn't follow the laws that were on their books. The Constitution is very clear that it's state legislatures that set the process for -- for having electors. Some secretary of states changed those rules.
And, he said, the Supremes "don't like getting the the middle of disputes between other branches of government."
At that point, Wallace went back to his original question, saying
So -- so, bottom line, even though the electors tomorrow are --more than 270 of them are going to say that -- that Joe Biden is the next president of the United States, you're not willing to recognize him as the president-elect, and you're not willing to stop contesting this election?
His response? Let's talk Bush v Gore, and get that wrong.
Well, hold on, Chris. First of all, Joe Biden has been going through a transition that even President Trump supported, while he's also following what the court allows. There are legal challenges allowed. Nobody said back during Bush v Gore, prior to the Supreme Court finally resolving it, and ultimately there -- there was an -- you know, electors met, there was a swearing in. Nobody disputed that. Maybe some of the Democrat side.
But you didn't see people ask prior to that to pass judgment before it was fully resolved. Let the legal process play out. But if you want to restore trust by millions of people who are still very frustrated and angry about what happened, that's why you've got to have the whole system play out. There will be a president sworn in on January 20th, but let's let this legal process play itself out.
I wish at this juncture Wallace had asked Scalise how he'd explain the Supremes ruling in Bush v Gore that no recount could be held in time to satisfy a federal deadline for the selection of state electors - but he didn't.
They also talked about the fact that AG Bill Barr knew about - but didn't announce - an investigation into Hunter Biden's taxes, because he didn't want to interfere in the election, in accordance with DOJ guidelines. He asked Scalise if that was the right thing to do. No surprise - he went all NY Post and censorship and that the stories that came out were true, and "I think people deserve answers to what really happened here." Which, of course, does not answer the question he was asked, but that's never been a hindrance.
Wallace pointed out that we don't know what truth there is, just that it's being investigated, and then asked "do you trust Joe Biden to continue this investigation when he becomes president and his attorney general is in charge after January 20th, to continue the investigation of his son?
Well, I'm sure whoever would be put up for attorney general would be heavily scrutinized by the United States Senate. That is the advise and consent role that they would play. But, again, these are concerns that were laid out during the campaign, including yourself, other people in the media expressed concerns about that story and Twitter blocked the distribution of the story and it turns out there's a lot of merit to it. Whether it's completely true or not, we're going to find out, but it's being much -- much more widely reported now after the election and it's another reason that people have real distrust in -- in the mainstream media.
The last question was about California Rep. Eric Swalwell, who we learned had some contact with a woman believed to be a Chinese spy. (Wallace didn't mention that, back in 2015 when the FBI advised him that a fundraiser, Christine Fang, was a "allegedly a Chinese spy," Swalwell immediately severed all contact and fully cooperated with the FBI investigation.)
Referencing comments from House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy saying that Swalwell shouldn't be on the House Intelligence Committee, Wallace asked Scalise if he or McCarthy "have any evidence, hard evidence, that Eric Swalwell gave -- did anything wrong in his relationship with this woman, knew that she was a spy before he was warned about it and ever gave her sensitive information?"
His answer? If you want hard evidence from me, ask him. Ask Swalwell - "these are questions that Eric Swalwell himself needs to answer."
Maybe Wallace can have him on to answer all of the other questions Scalise didn't answer, too.
See you around campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!