Home / World News / Opinion | ‘Denial and Anger’: Trump and the Republicans

Opinion | ‘Denial and Anger’: Trump and the Republicans

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Marshals Federal Power to Overturn His Election Defeat” (front page, Nov. 11):

President Trump’s outrageous refusal to accept the election results — and the appalling lack of integrity shown by most Republicans, who are apparently willing to risk what’s left of this country’s democratic traditions by once again failing to stand up to Mr. Trump — is even more troubling when viewed in a historical context.

Until now, all presidential hopefuls have put the country’s institutions, values and stability before their own ambitions. Four years ago, despite winning three million more votes than Mr. Trump, Hillary Clinton graciously conceded. In 2000, Al Gore accepted the ruling by the Supreme Court that installed George W. Bush as president.

It’s bad enough that Mr. Trump won’t concede — no one really expected he would suddenly set aside his autocratic leanings, megalomania and vanity for the good of the nation — but the craven absence of integrity on the part of other Republicans is inexcusable.

Marcy Stamper
Twisp, Wash.

To the Editor:

It appears that the Republican political hierarchy is waiting for President Trump to go through the five stages of grief before acknowledging Joe Biden’s victory. In other words, they are allowing democratic processes to be put on hold so that Mr. Trump can work through his personal trauma. This is perverse! The coddling of Mr. Trump should not take priority over continuity of government. His damaged psyche should be his problem, not the country’s.

Those Republicans may have a long wait. Based on what we’ve seen of Mr. Trump’s emotional range, he is likely to be caught in a loop between denial and anger and never advance any further. In the meantime, the rest of us must move forward, even if it means that there isn’t a single Republican Party leader at Mr. Biden’s inauguration.

Robyn Livermore
Sioux Falls, S.D.

To the Editor:

Since the election, about one million new coronavirus cases were diagnosed in the United States. During that time, other than contesting the election on baseless grounds, President Trump spent a lot of time golfing. Meanwhile, Joe Biden got to work assembling a top-of-the-line task force to fight that virus.

Could there be a better comparison of the president-elect versus the president-neglect?

Norman L. Bender
Woodbridge, Conn.

To the Editor:

Re “The Courts Won’t Decide the Election,” by Richard H. Pildes (Op-Ed, Nov. 6):

I fear that this election is not at all over, despite the pronouncements of the media and the commentators. Mr. Pildes is surely right that a legal attack on the vote counts per se will not be successful in the courts. He misses the real possibility, however, that in some key swing states with close outcomes in Joe Biden’s favor, the Republican-dominated legislatures may well declare that in view of the controversies over the propriety of the counts, they will have to intervene, resulting in designation of Trump electors.

The Supreme Court could well declare that such actions are legal pursuant to the constitutional provision authorizing state legislatures to determine the mode of selecting electors, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which seems to give the legislatures considerable discretion in the resolution of such disputes.

Why there is so little discussion of this potential threat to popular vote outcomes is puzzling.

Stephen E. Appell

To the Editor:

If the past four years have taught us anything, it is that President Trump will do the unexpected, the unimaginable and the unthinkable. He has shown he believes that as president, he is above the law.

What if these claims of “election fraud” are merely a distraction and there is a more nefarious agenda? Did Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s remarks about Mr. Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20 for a second term reveal a hidden agenda?

Mr. Trump is removing top leadership in the Defense Department. Ostensibly this is to serve revenge on his perceived enemies. Is there more to it? The president has blocked information sharing or making funds available as required for any transition.

What if Mr. Trump never had any intention of stepping down on Jan. 20, regardless of the election? What if the moves we are seeing at the Defense Department are attempts to grab control of the military, with the possible intent of using American troops in an attempt to seize control of the government?

Preposterous? Unthinkable? We are talking about Mr. Trump here, not a typical politician who mostly plays by the rules.

Clint Perry
Newport, Ore.

To the Editor:

Why are Republicans happy to accept the Senate and the House results, but not the presidential race? Are they not on the same ballot?

Edward Drossman
New York

To the Editor:

Dear Mr. Trump,

I know it hurts to lose, and this must be especially hard for you, since you haven’t lost very many times in your life, or at least have spun your losses to make them seem like wins. But most of us know how losing feels, and we can empathize with you and your pain. Now you should take it like a man, and as graciously as possible accept the fact that there were more people who didn’t want you for president than those who did. You can take consolation in the fact that there were lots of people who supported you.

The election was fair, and the vote counts were accurate. So suck it up and go quietly. Grow up. Get over it. Move on.

Perry Silvey
New York

To the Editor:

Re “Consternation in Law Firms Filing Suits for Trump” (Business Day, Nov. 10):

Your article cites growing discomfort among members of the Jones Day and Porter Wright law firms for their representation of the Trump campaign.

As an attorney and former litigator, I find it troubling that fellow lawyers would choose to represent President Trump in his efforts to overturn the election results. All people deserve to be represented. However, not all cases deserve to be brought to court. Lawyers are required to have a belief that the facts support the claims asserted.

As a litigator I pursued some unpopular cases. However, I never did so unless I had a belief in the factual basis of the claim. To do otherwise would have been unethical.

A decision to represent Mr. Trump in specious litigation seems to violate ethical duties to uphold the law and to avoid legal actions based on meritless assertions. The decision of Jones Day and Porter Wright to bring frivolous claims is destructive to the country and to the judicial system.

Anne Slifkin
Durham, N.C.

About brandsauthority

Check Also

The Deadliness of the 2014 Ebola Outbreak Was Not Inevitable

But once he returns those two narratives to the original timeline — Freetown, late 2014 …

%d bloggers like this: