To prevent a future transition mess, Congress should fix the law

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The vast majority of ballots around the country have been counted, and Joe Biden has comfortably secured enough of them to win the presidency. He is — by any reasonable legal understanding of the term — the “apparent” winner. Why, then, is the Trump administration able to stall the transition process to new leadership?

The answer is simple: the law is too vague. It doesn’t place a timeline on when a sitting president’s administration must start helping a successor regime to take over. As a result, Trump appointees are able to drag their feet, making it far more difficult for President-elect Joe Biden and his team to prepare to lead the country.

Congress has been abundantly clear about the importance of an orderly transfer of presidential power. In the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, Congress declared that “any disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.”

The process is triggered when the head of the General Services Administration (GSA) — the government agency that facilitates the presidential transfer of power — ascertains the “apparent” winner following the general presidential election. The problem is that the law doesn’t specify how or when GSA must make that determination and carry out its important responsibilities to assist the incoming administration.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prevent-future-transition-mess-congress-130113318.html

Yet the current law worked just fine for 57 years before now and this crop of clowns.

[unblock]

1. Just because a toddler says "make me" doesn't mean the rules aren't abundantly clear.

It's beyond dispute that Biden is the "apparent" winner.

They can say it's not yet official because the states haven't all certified.

They can say he's not the rightful winner and they'll eventually prove it (though we know it's a fantasy).

But there is no interpretation of the word "apparent" that doesn't apply here to Biden as the apparent winner.

Even by alleging fraud, they are claiming that it "appears" the Biden won.

The law is quite clear. People are appeasing fascists when the claim the law is too vague here.

It is not.

They are plainly breaking it. And people are once again letting them get away with it.

[mr_lebowski]

2. This right here

^^^^

Well said my friend

[mwooldri]

4. I believe Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC said that...

... there was a lack of "punishment" if the GSA director didn't do their job.

Man it is hard to "adult" and yet Joe and his team are clearly the adults.

IMO the law could do with a change, the 2020 election is a reason because the 9/11 commission said the delay in the transition to the GWB admin likely didn't help in possibly preventing the 9/11 attack. So law should change that if there is no apparent winner after 7 days the candidates who have a path to victory get briefings and get a possible transition to one or another administration underway. Oh, and put an enforceable penalty in there if the GSA director doesn't do their job. Jail time sounds good to me.

[unblock]

5. Yeah these days it's one of two candidates

Just give both of them the briefings, etc., until it becomes obvious which one.

[CatLady78]

3. That should be the utility of the Trump era

And really of any rogue group..you come up with regulations you never conceived of needing.