For Democrats the Peaceful Transfer of Power a Sometime Thing

President Trump’s enemies are grossly misinterpreting a remark he made this week on a possible post-election "peaceful transfer of power."

But more than that they’re displaying their own hypocrisy on the issue of transferring power.

Playboy White House reporter Brian Karem brought up the issue at a Wednesday press conference

"Win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?" he asked, according to NBC News.

The president answered, "We're going to have to see what happens."

Many observers, including MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, interpreted his response to mean that the president would refuse to give up power if he lost.

"Rather than commit to a peaceful transfer of power, the president just said that if you get rid of the ballots, he can guarantee it will be peaceful because there will be no transfer and he will continue rule," he tweeted.

A CNBC headline screamed, "Trump won’t commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election."

Without surprise, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also commented.

"Trump’s refusal to commit to the peaceful transfer of power is the behavior of a desperate would-be dictator who’d cling to office even if it meant destroying our democracy," she claimed.

"It’s pathetic. But because he is the president, we should take his threat seriously."

And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the chamber floor to deliver his response.

"The gravest threat to American democracy right now is Donald Trump," the New York Democrat said in an impassioned speech.

"This is not a partisan issue. Democracy is at stake."

Finally the Joe Biden campaign, eager to distinguish itself from that of the president, gave CNN an odd statement.

"Joe Biden has participated in a peaceful transition of power before," the campaign's Kate Bedingfield told the cable news outlet. "He certainly will this time."

Given that Biden has no power to transfer, the statement resulted in a lot of head-scratching.

But everyone apparently never bothered listening to the reporter’s question and the president’s response.

Karen prefaced his question with "win, lose or draw."

If Trump wins, there’s no need to transfer power; if he loses he would. If there’s a problem like the 2000 Bush-Gore race requiting the court’s intervention, the outcome would be anyone’s guess.

Accordingly, Trump’s answer, "We're going to have to see what happens," makes perfect sense.

Clinton’s response to the president’s alleged "refusal to commit to the peaceful transfer of power" was probably unfortunate given a statement she’d made late last month.

"Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is," Clinton said on Showtime's "The Circus," according to The Hill.com.

So Biden should obstinately hang tough and not concede no matter what. Got it.

Another recent event provides one more example of their hypocrisy on this issue.

The very people who question whether Trump will participate in a peaceful transition of power in the event he loses the general election, continue to oppose the peaceful transition of power at the Supreme Court level.

They claim that because it’s late in an election year, whomever wins the general election should nominate the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement.

But by tradition, that depends upon whether the government is divided or united.

Sen. Mike Lee explained the rule the Senate has followed when Supreme Court vacancies occur during presidential election years.

"We’ve had 29 Supreme Court vacancies arise during presidential election years in the history of out republic," the Utah Republican told Fox News host Martha MacCallum Wednesday.

"On 10 of those occasions we’ve had divided government — the president in charge of one party, the Senate under another. Nine out of those 10 cases the nominee was rejected," Lee explained.

"Nineteen times of those 29 there was not a divided government, In 18 out of 19 times, the vacancy was filled. We’re following the precedent that has been set and adhered to in most cases where a vacancy arises in a presidential election year."

Democrats claim that this vacancy can be distinguished from previous united-government, election-year vacancies because Ginsburg’s alleged deathbed wish was that her replacement be nominated by the victor of the November general election.

But as podcaster Todd Starnes observed, "It’s the Supreme Court, not the Make-A-Wish Foundation."

So the president’s detractors should just calm down. The republic will go on as it has for more than two centuries.

Besides, they’ll need to save their strength for the collective primal scream that will be sure to come when another conservative justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, and voters give Trump another four-year lease to the White House.

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.