Did Obama/ Clinton concede the 2016 election?

"WH press secretary falsely says Trump's election in 2016 was never accepted."

4 years of "not my president" and "russian collusion got him elected" "impeach 45" and on and on and on, sure looks like it was never accepted. 

Um... I got nothing. You're too willfully ignorant.

If all she said was what is quoted above then, she's absolutely right.*


"Never excepting Trump's election" is exactly what the Democrats have been doing for the last 4 years.

They vowed to impeach him from the moment of his inauguration before he had even done anything. No reason to impeach, but they were going to do it anyway.

John Brennan’s handwritten notes say Hillary intended to "vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service,”
as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server”

Russia, Russia, Russia, investigations for years.

Didn't matter that it showed no collusion by the Trump administration, it was an exercise in which the sole purpose was to undermine a duly elected president.

Impeaching him over a phone call, that was supposed to have been proof of something bad and yet none of the "witnesses" actually witnessed anything close to what they were claiming.

And of course the mind numbingly stupid threat to impeach him for doing his job and nominating Amy Coney-Barret for the Supreme Court.

Wanting to invoke the 25th weeks before the election.
I stand corrected, I think that has got win the award for the most mind numbingly stupid threat. 


*If she's saying that they didn't concede, then she's wrong. So which is it?

*accepting*, not "excepting". Just thought I'd point that out.

1000x this. 

I'm bored.  I'm engaging solely for entertainment value.

here.... youtu.be/khK9fIgoNjQ

7 minutes in she says she pledged to Trump to support him...

if that's not a concession...

here she talks about the call to concede to Trump.;


www.politico.com/story/2017/09/06/hillary-clinton-what-happened-book-excerpts-242372

Immediately after that she says, "His presidency was never accepted."  This is a matter of opinion but can be strongly supported by the fact that on the day of his inauguration 1/3 of Democrats boycotted and WashPo had this as their headline:  "The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun".  

1. The first article is about House of Representatives, of which the strong majority - 66% DID attend the inauguration, or, in your implication, accept it. It does not refer to Senators, governors, or other Democratic Party members. 

2. Not attending an inauguration does not mean that you don’t accept it as valid, it may mean that you accept it and are protesting it. As was the point of my attending the Women’s March in DC. I accepted that Trump won AND I exercised my right to protest it. I can’t speak for the House of Representatives members that you are referencing. 

3. The article about impeaching you linked has to do with his violating the emoluments clause, which is perfectly understandable, given his refusal to sell off his business interests, instead of handing them off to his children who have demonstrated over the past 4 years that they will not separate family from business and leave dad out of the loop. Trump was impeached, however, because of his connection to election tampering. <Irony alert>

4. Finally, not attending inaugurations has been a long-standing tradition by BOTH parties  that has little/nothing to do with claiming an election was the result of fraud/invalid. 



www.newstalkflorida.com/featured/inauguration-skipping-is-nothing-new/

I think she's equating the 2 parts of your bolded sentence. I believe she's saying because his presidency was never accepted that even though they followed immediate protocol of the transfer of power in the public eye, before and after that "show of transfer of power" it was never what someone trying to assume the presidency could consider an "orderly" transition of power. He was forever fighting off attacks against him being the president. 

My belief is backed up by what she says... Kayleigh McEnany: "We talked a lot about the transfer of power and the election and it’s worth remembering that this president was never given an orderly transition of power, his presidency was never accepted. In fact before the election, his election we know crossfire hurricane was launched by Peter Strzok. To pursue baseless allegations about the president’s ties with Russia. That’s before he was president, trying to subvert the will of the American people. We know in August Peter Strzok wrote a text message about an insurance policy about a Trump presidency. Once again trying to silence the voice of the American people in 2016. We know in October that there was aa FISA warrant—a FISA warrant taken out to spy on the Trump campaign.

What happened after his election? You had 70 lawmakers saying we’re not coming to his inauguration. Democratic lawmakers. You had Elizabeth Warren saying “We’re going to attempt to obstruct the Trump transition by urging the Government accountability office to investigate the incoming Trump transition."  In January of that year you had president Obama have a “by the book” meeting where they talked about the Logan Act, using that act to go after LT. General Michael Flynn. Just before the inauguration you had Buzzfeed promoting and publishing the bogus Steele dossier that’s been widely debunked. And for 2 years you had the Mueller investigation which searched for collusion, found none. In 2016 Trump became the duly elected president, many sought to undermine him, discredit him, delegitimize him and deny his victory. There were no calls for unity, there were no calls for healing. So while every legal vote is counted, let us not forget the inexcusable transition, or lack thereof, that President Trump had to endure in 2016 and four years into his presidency.

Based on that Freddie, I don't think she or anyone is saying they did not go through the motions of conceding. 

First, I’m opining about the subject and ignoring whatever pedantic word-splicing is probably going on in all the blocked posts I’m seeing.

Second, Ms. NcEnany is a master at saying things without exactly saying them. She started beating this “The Democrats fought the election results for four years” drum even before the election, probably under instruction. I have no doubt she parses and rehearses her language. As instructed, she’s sending a message to the base - most of whom will hear and accept what they want to hear and accept - but she has “Who...ME?” deniability if challenged for creating a false impression. This whole election thing was carefully pre-massaged and she’s a pro. 

Her boss, linguistic dingleberry that he is, also has send-a-message-but-leave-room-for-deniability chops of sorts. I’m still not quite sure when he plans and when he benefits from serendipity (see: “Fine people on both sides” and “Proud boys should stand by.”) Senator Graham also either muddled through dog whistles or intentionally parsed his words a couple times recently about black residents of South Carolina. Who knows how calculated they are v. lucky. 

But Kayleigh McEneny? She is definitely using a linguistic calculus. There is intention. 

Yeah. That.