Donald Trump has again declined to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses November’s US presidential election.
The president has for several months been pressing a campaign against mail-in voting in the poll by tweeting and speaking out critically about the practice, which has been encouraged by more states as a way of keeping voters safe amid the coronavirus pandemic.
“We’re going to have to see what happens,” Mr Trump told reporters in response to a question about whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
“You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.”
Mr Trump has baselessly claimed widespread mail voting will lead to massive fraud, despite the five states that routinely send mail ballots to all voters having seen no significant fraud.
On Wednesday he appeared to suggest that if states got “rid of” the unsolicited mailing of ballots there would be no concern about fraud or peaceful transfers of power.
He said: “You’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer frankly. There’ll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control, you know it, and you know, who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.”
Mr Trump similarly refused to commit to accepting the results during an interview in July and made similar comments ahead of the 2016 election.
“I have to see. Look … I have to see,” he told Chris Wallace during a wide-ranging July interview on Fox News Sunday in July. “No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.”
Joe Biden’s campaign responded on Wednesday, as it did after Trump’s July comments, by saying: “The American people will decide this election. And the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.”
It is highly unusual that a sitting president would express less than complete confidence in the American democracy’s electoral process.
But Mr Trump four years ago, when in the closing stages of his race against Hillary Clinton, also declined to commit to honoring the election results if the Democrat won.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel