(11-18-2020 08:01 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 07:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 01:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 11:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Thanks for the wishes Tom.

As to the election, I recall that there was at least one state that allowed counting through December... Wasn't PA something like 15 days themselves?? and the election isn't 'certified' until that happens. All these projections and logical inferences don't make any difference... and all of these fake concerns about Biden being kept out of meetings is a bunch of crap. The rules are what the rules are. It was different under Bush/Obama/McCain because both guys were sitting Senators and access would have been allowed. Joe Biden does not have a security clearance and won't be given one until the election is certified. Clinton made an exception with Bush and that is great and would be great if Trump did that as well, but Clinton wasn't running for office and contesting the outcome. Gore was. It seems obvious that if Trump decided to 'waive' the laws about access, that would be used against him by both the media and the courts in his legal challenges. Anyone who disagrees is just wrong.

Trump COULD include him and IMO should drop the bs suits and do so, but the LAW SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES him until the election is certified... and Trump is challenging that.

Those ARE the rules.

While delaying the resources to Biden is mostly window dressing, there are real world implications. The 9/11 commission cited the protracted Bush-Gore certification as a factor in our preparedness.

And as you're aware, we are in a pandemic and are currently planning on how we will disburse millions of doses of vaccines across the country. Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense to have the incoming administration involved in those discussions since the responsibility will be theirs come January 21.

That is pretty much a BS talking point. What the report actually said was the extended election procedures played a role in causing a delay in getting people confirmed and working in their jobs "may" have contributed to 911. But I would point to early 2017, when the Democrats were actually using every procedural rule possible to block and delay confirming Trump administration governmental appointees. In other words, they were delaying people getting to work for really no good reason at all---they just did so because they could. Thus, Im kinda in the "cry me a river" camp when it comes to sudden concern on a minor finding in an almost 2 decade old 911 report. Its obviously not a concern the Democrats hold in any great regard.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/po...inees.html

I'm afraid that partisan reasoning like this could **** us, though. I don't care what the Democrats hold in great regard, the 9/11 commission was pretty clear (as RWT posted):

"The outgoing administration should provide the president-elect, as soon as possible after Election Day, with classified, compartmented list that catalogues specific, operational threats to national security; major military or covert operations; and pending decisions on the possible use of force. Such a document could provide both notice and a checklist, inviting a president-elect to inquire and learn more."

You can't honestly tell me that "Never Forget" becomes "Eh, whatever" this easily...

Again, 911 basically happened because the FBI thought extremist Muslins taking pilot lessons where they only wanted to learn to take off, but didnt really care about learning how to land---was not something worth looking into. That information never reached any presidential briefing. Secondly, at the very worst, Biden will start getting presidential briefings in the first week of December--about a month and half prior to ever taking office. You can get worried about it if you wish--but if a president elect cant get a handle on the biggest threats in a month and half of briefings--then he's not competent and was going to be disaster no matter when the briefings started.

Im confident he will have all the information he needs and I suspect the Republican Senate will not go all out to undermine the sitting of his key governmental appointees the way Democrats did.