ACKNOWLEDGING THE LOSS.
OUR NEXT GUEST IS AN EXPERT ON
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY AND
ELECTION LAW.
UW-MADISON POLITICAL SCIENCE
PROFESSOR KEN MAYER JOIN US NOND NOW
AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR DOING
SO.
SO WHAT IS YOUR TAKE WHETHER
REPEATING CLAIMS THAT THE
ELECTION WAS RIGGED OR STOLEN OR
RIFE WITH FRAUD IS POFER
DISCUSSION OR PUTS OUR DEMOCRACY
AT RISK?
>> THOSE CLAIMS ARE DEEPLY
CORROSIVE BECAUSE THERE HAS
NEVER BEEN ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
OF FRAUD, NO MATTER WHAT SENATOR
JOHNSON SAYS.
IT'S JUST NOT TRUE.
AND ONE OF THE WAYS THAT -- ONE
OF THE TELLS IS THAT EVEN THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS AND OTHER
LAWYERS WHEN THEY GO INTO
FEDERAL COURT, WHERE THERE ARE
CONSEQUENCES FOR
MISREPRESENTATION, THEY'RE NOT
ALLEGING FRAUD.
AND SO THERE JUST IS ABSOLUTELY
NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.
THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY
EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.
THE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED
TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
EVEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
CHIEF CYBERSECURITY OFFICIAL
SAYS THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY
MANIPULATION OR INTRUSION.
IT'S ALL NONSENSE.
>> SO HOW IS IT CORROSIVE AND
HOW DOES IT PUT OUR DEMOCRACY AT
RISK?
>> IT PUTS DEMOCRACY AT RISK
BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES THE
ABSOLUTE CENTRAL TENET ANY
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, WHICH IS THAT
PERIODIC ELECTIONS RESULT IN A
TRANSFER, A PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF
POWER WHEN THE INCUMBENT PARTY
LOSES.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED
HERE.
AND IT'S NOT -- THE THREAT IS
NOT THAT THESE CLAIMS ARE GOING
TO WORK.
THEY ARE NOT WORKING.
THEY HAVE NEVER WORKED.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO WORK ON
JANUARY 6 WHEN THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE VOTES ARE COUNTED.
BUT THIS ESTABLISHES THE
PRECEDENT THAT ANY LOSER CAN
CONTINUALLY CLAIM FRAUD AND
CLAIM THAT THE ELECTION WAS
STOLEN, AGAIN, WITHOUT A SHRED
OF EVIDENCE.
AND IT LEADS TO SIGNIFICANT
PERCENTAGES OF THE PUBLIC
BELIEVING THAT THERE'S SOMETHING
THERE THAT THE ELECTION WAS
STOLEN.
>> SO WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE
BELIEVE THAT?
>> BECAUSE THEIR CANDIDATES AND
CHIEF PARTY OFFICIALS ARE
TELLING THEM THAT.
AND THAT'S WHAT SO DEEPLY
IRRESPONSIBLE ABOUT THIS.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK SENATOR
JOHNSON'S HEARING WAS SO
REMARKABLY IRRESPONSIBLE, IS
THAT IT JUST CONTINUES TO GIVE
OXYGEN, TO GIVE VOICE TO THESE
REPEATEDLY DISCOUNTED CLAIMS
THAT JUDGE AFTER JUDGE,
INCLUDING THOSE APPOINTED BY THE
PRESIDENT, HAVE SAID THERE'S
NOTHING THERE.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED
LAWSUITS.
THERE JUST -- THERE IS NOTHING
THERE.
AND I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME
EXAMINING THE ALLEGED EVIDENCE
AND IT'S JUST FALSE.
I CAN'T PUT IT ANY PLAINER THAN
THAT.
EXCEPT IN WAYS THAT MIGHT GET
YOU IN TROUBLE WITH THE FCC.
SO IT JUST IS REALLY
IRRESPONSIBLE TO CONTINUE THESE
UNSUPPORTED AND FALSE
ALLEGATIONS OF ANY TYPE OF
FRAUD.
>> DID YOU IMAGINE THAT THIS IS
HOW IT WOULD GO IF DONALD TRUMP
IN FACT LOST THE ELECTION?
>> WELL, IN A WAY, YES, BECAUSE
HE SAID HE WOULD.
HE HAD REPEATEDLY SAID THAT HE
WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE LOSS.
HE REPEATEDLY SAID TO HIS
SUPPORTERS THAT THE ONLY WAY
THAT HE WOULD LOSE WOULD BE
BECAUSE THE ELECTION WAS
RIGGEDMENT SO THAT PART IS,
FRANKLY, NOT TERRIBLY
SURPRISING.
WHAT IS I THINK MORE SURPRISING
AND DISAPPOINTING IS THE NUMBER
OF OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS IN
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHO HAVE
GONE ALONG WITH THIS AND THEY'VE
BEEN EITHER PLAYING COY, THAT
THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HIS
COMPLAINTS HEARD, OR THEY'VE
SIMPLY DEFLECTED THE QUESTION.
BUT WE ARE NOW AT A POINT WHERE
THERE ARE TENS OF MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE UTTERLY CONVINCED
THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN,
THAT IT WAS FRAUDULENT BECAUSE
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES HAS REPEATEDLY INSISTED
THAT IT WAS.
>> WHAT WILL HISTORY SAY, IN
YOUR MIND, ABOUT THESE EVENTS IN
U.S. ELECTORAL POLITICS?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES IN THE
PAST WHERE ELECTION OUTCOMES
HAVE BEEN BITTERLY CONTESTED OR
CLOSE.
I MEAN, 2000 IS NOT QUITE
ANALOGOUS BECAUSE THAT INVOLVED
A SINGLE DISPUTE IN A SINGLE
STATE.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER
ELECTIONS, 1876, 1824, 18 #00.
BUT I THINK WHAT HISTORY WILL
REMEMBER IS NOT THE FACT THAT
THIS ELECTION WAS -- YOU KNOW,
WAS DISPUTED IN A SENSE.
THAT'S TRUE BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONE
CANDIDATE SAYING THAT HE'S NOT
GOING TO CONCEDE.
BUT JUST THE FLAGRANT FALSEHOOD
OF THE CLAIMS AND THE FACT THAT
IT WAS AN INTENTIONAL EFFORT TO
UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF THE
ELECTORAL, THE DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS, FOR NO OTHER REASON
THAN THE FACT THAT HE LOST.
>> WE LEAVE IT THERE.
PROFESSOR KEN MAYER, THANKS VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR