cberg wrote:
Partisans find it inconvenient?
Let's consider...
cberg wrote:
Ditching national security officials repeatedly is not a partisan issue, it's a national security issue.
Even assuming nothing changes with regards to the results, until January next year, Mr Trump is still your President, and thus the rights\resposibilities of the role remain his. Should someone be fired before that time, there is nothing to prevent them being re-hired when the new regime take over.
As to the reasons for the firings: If the role requires them to follow the directions of the head of the Executive branch, and they have failed to do so (for example), then they are more of a security threat in their role, and should be removed.
cberg wrote:
Trump is not a participant in the real election, he is denying the implications. Actual Republicans are conceding.
Given the
suggestion from a former, unsuccessful candidate that Mr Biden
Quote:
should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is
Why should a similar standard not apply to Mr Trump?
Similarly, from the first debate:
Quote:
1:31:51 WALLACE
Vice President Biden, final question for you. Will you urge your supporters to stay calm while the vote is counted? And will you pledge not to declare victory until the election is independently certified?
1:32:05 BIDEN
Yes.
Source:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/30/presidential-debate-read-full-transcript-first-debate/3587462001/So, given the above, yes - it is the partisans who are finding facts uncomfortable...And the more partisan they are, the more they appear to wish to have the electoral process (with included ability to challenge results) circumvented so that their candidate can claim victory.