Trump-appointed GSA administrator refusing to work with Biden transition team

[Anonymous]

She should just do her job. Everyone is getting death threats now. Thanks, Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.

And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.

It is probably terrifying to be her right now.

And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.

It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.

What is the precedent for ascertainment when the opponent has not conceded and the states have not yet done their certifications? Yes, we all know what the math is for the projections that are widely accepted, but what is the clear standard she is supposed to apply. All the rest of government is waiting for her to sign on the dotted line because we know what we can do then, but what is her basis for action?

I am a democrat and on team Biden here but the above poster is not crazy that the GSA Administrator is in a no win situation. I have dealt with Administrator Murphy and she is generally reasonable and an advocate for good government and she received bi partisan approval during her confirmation.

States have never had to ceritfy before the Transition was started in any of our prior elections. She’s doing this for no reason.

The reason that previous GSA administrators have been able to start the process early is because all previous losing candidates have conceded the election within 24 hours of the completion of the election. Barring the losing candidate conceding, the GSA administrator has to wait for official results from states to certify their results.

It is not Ms. Murphy's job to certify the election. It is not her decision to send the letter. It is her responsibility to send the letter when she has been given the official result of the election. With no concession and no certified results from the states, she does not have the authority to decide the outcome and send the letter. Yes, the media has projected the election and we all know the results, but that's still not enough for an official act that will cost the federal government a lot of money and give classified information to people who are not yet employees of the federal government.

I love the fact that the man who was the GSA administrator in 2000 called her to offer her his counsel and support. He's the only one who can really speak to her from experience.
https://apnews.com/article/emily-murphy-say-transitional-launch-110eea5e33860598a0e177708081dd47

It may be her responsibility to send the letter, but the authority to decide when to send it is above her pay grade. Blame Trump, not Ms. Murphy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.

And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.

It is probably terrifying to be her right now.

And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.

It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.

What is the precedent for ascertainment when the opponent has not conceded and the states have not yet done their certifications? Yes, we all know what the math is for the projections that are widely accepted, but what is the clear standard she is supposed to apply. All the rest of government is waiting for her to sign on the dotted line because we know what we can do then, but what is her basis for action?

I am a democrat and on team Biden here but the above poster is not crazy that the GSA Administrator is in a no win situation. I have dealt with Administrator Murphy and she is generally reasonable and an advocate for good government and she received bi partisan approval during her confirmation.

States have never had to ceritfy before the Transition was started in any of our prior elections. She’s doing this for no reason.

The reason that previous GSA administrators have been able to start the process early is because all previous losing candidates have conceded the election within 24 hours of the completion of the election. Barring the losing candidate conceding, the GSA administrator has to wait for official results from states to certify their results.

It is not Ms. Murphy's job to certify the election. It is not her decision to send the letter. It is her responsibility to send the letter when she has been given the official result of the election. With no concession and no certified results from the states, she does not have the authority to decide the outcome and send the letter. Yes, the media has projected the election and we all know the results, but that's still not enough for an official act that will cost the federal government a lot of money and give classified information to people who are not yet employees of the federal government.

I love the fact that the man who was the GSA administrator in 2000 called her to offer her his counsel and support. He's the only one who can really speak to her from experience.
https://apnews.com/article/emily-murphy-say-transitional-launch-110eea5e33860598a0e177708081dd47

It may be her responsibility to send the letter, but the authority to decide when to send it is above her pay grade. Blame Trump, not Ms. Murphy.

But a concession is just etiquette. It has no actual bearing on anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.

And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.

It is probably terrifying to be her right now.

And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.

It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.

What is the precedent for ascertainment when the opponent has not conceded and the states have not yet done their certifications? Yes, we all know what the math is for the projections that are widely accepted, but what is the clear standard she is supposed to apply. All the rest of government is waiting for her to sign on the dotted line because we know what we can do then, but what is her basis for action?

I am a democrat and on team Biden here but the above poster is not crazy that the GSA Administrator is in a no win situation. I have dealt with Administrator Murphy and she is generally reasonable and an advocate for good government and she received bi partisan approval during her confirmation.

States have never had to ceritfy before the Transition was started in any of our prior elections. She’s doing this for no reason.

The reason that previous GSA administrators have been able to start the process early is because all previous losing candidates have conceded the election within 24 hours of the completion of the election. Barring the losing candidate conceding, the GSA administrator has to wait for official results from states to certify their results.

It is not Ms. Murphy's job to certify the election. It is not her decision to send the letter. It is her responsibility to send the letter when she has been given the official result of the election. With no concession and no certified results from the states, she does not have the authority to decide the outcome and send the letter. Yes, the media has projected the election and we all know the results, but that's still not enough for an official act that will cost the federal government a lot of money and give classified information to people who are not yet employees of the federal government.

I love the fact that the man who was the GSA administrator in 2000 called her to offer her his counsel and support. He's the only one who can really speak to her from experience.
https://apnews.com/article/emily-murphy-say-transitional-launch-110eea5e33860598a0e177708081dd47

It may be her responsibility to send the letter, but the authority to decide when to send it is above her pay grade. Blame Trump, not Ms. Murphy.

The language is "apparent election winner".

That's Biden. There is no way for it to be anyone other than Biden. The PA lawsuits are done. The MI shananigans are over. Numerically, it can only be Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thrilled that Trump lost. I'm a diehard democrat, but I respect politicians of all parties - I just think Trump is a vile human being.

That said, I agree fully with 13:27 and 13:28. Ms. Murphy is a person - probably a very decent one, regardless of her politics, who finds herself in the middle of an absolute nightmare, and the source of unbelievable vitriol.

Those of you hurling invective at her are no better than those on the other side of the political divide whose behavior you condemn.

She’s holding up the damned transition and not doing her legal job.

Should we wait until January 19th when she inexplicably feels comfortable with it?

No. We have at most about 3 weeks to wait. December 8 is the deadline for all states to complete their certifications of the election results and to resolve any disputes or legal issues in court. At that point, the states must submit the election results to their state capitols, where the legislatures will draft the final list of electors to send to the governors. The governors have to sign the slate of electors and those electors need to report in person to the state capitols on December 14 to cast their votes for the election.

So, the state election results will be certified within the next 20 days. Once the states have certified the results, the GSA administrator can ascertain that the results are valid and legal and send the letter. So essentially no more than 20 days, less if the key states, AZ, NV, PA, GA, all certify their results earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thrilled that Trump lost. I'm a diehard democrat, but I respect politicians of all parties - I just think Trump is a vile human being.

That said, I agree fully with 13:27 and 13:28. Ms. Murphy is a person - probably a very decent one, regardless of her politics, who finds herself in the middle of an absolute nightmare, and the source of unbelievable vitriol.

Those of you hurling invective at her are no better than those on the other side of the political divide whose behavior you condemn.

Sorry - that's just objectively false. Murphy is choosing to violate multiple Federal statutes, period. She should comply, or quit. She is a criminal who on every level is no different from Trump.

Maybe she should just sign the ascertainment and wait to be fired.

That said, please name the multiple federal statutes that she is violating because I have not seen any identified here.

She has perjury and mismanagement where the Trump hotel is concerned hanging over her heard.

And google is your friend where the congressional statues are concerned. See "presidential transition act"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thrilled that Trump lost. I'm a diehard democrat, but I respect politicians of all parties - I just think Trump is a vile human being.

That said, I agree fully with 13:27 and 13:28. Ms. Murphy is a person - probably a very decent one, regardless of her politics, who finds herself in the middle of an absolute nightmare, and the source of unbelievable vitriol.

Those of you hurling invective at her are no better than those on the other side of the political divide whose behavior you condemn.

She’s holding up the damned transition and not doing her legal job.

Should we wait until January 19th when she inexplicably feels comfortable with it?

No. We have at most about 3 weeks to wait. December 8 is the deadline for all states to complete their certifications of the election results and to resolve any disputes or legal issues in court. At that point, the states must submit the election results to their state capitols, where the legislatures will draft the final list of electors to send to the governors. The governors have to sign the slate of electors and those electors need to report in person to the state capitols on December 14 to cast their votes for the election.

So, the state election results will be certified within the next 20 days. Once the states have certified the results, the GSA administrator can ascertain that the results are valid and legal and send the letter. So essentially no more than 20 days, less if the key states, AZ, NV, PA, GA, all certify their results earlier.

And yet, the irreparable damage being done by holing out is incalculable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


The reason that previous GSA administrators have been able to start the process early is because all previous losing candidates have conceded the election within 24 hours of the completion of the election. Barring the losing candidate conceding, the GSA administrator has to wait for official results from states to certify their results.

It is not Ms. Murphy's job to certify the election. It is not her decision to send the letter. It is her responsibility to send the letter when she has been given the official result of the election. With no concession and no certified results from the states, she does not have the authority to decide the outcome and send the letter. Yes, the media has projected the election and we all know the results, but that's still not enough for an official act that will cost the federal government a lot of money and give classified information to people who are not yet employees of the federal government.

I love the fact that the man who was the GSA administrator in 2000 called her to offer her his counsel and support. He's the only one who can really speak to her from experience.
https://apnews.com/article/emily-murphy-say-transitional-launch-110eea5e33860598a0e177708081dd47

It may be her responsibility to send the letter, but the authority to decide when to send it is above her pay grade. Blame Trump, not Ms. Murphy.

Read the statute...she doesn't need to await certification. When there is an apparent winner, she has the latitude to certify. Only morons watching OAN think there is any question left. Why admit being one of those?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.

And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.

It is probably terrifying to be her right now.

And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.

It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.

What is the precedent for ascertainment when the opponent has not conceded and the states have not yet done their certifications? Yes, we all know what the math is for the projections that are widely accepted, but what is the clear standard she is supposed to apply. All the rest of government is waiting for her to sign on the dotted line because we know what we can do then, but what is her basis for action?

I am a democrat and on team Biden here but the above poster is not crazy that the GSA Administrator is in a no win situation. I have dealt with Administrator Murphy and she is generally reasonable and an advocate for good government and she received bi partisan approval during her confirmation.

States have never had to ceritfy before the Transition was started in any of our prior elections. She’s doing this for no reason.

The reason that previous GSA administrators have been able to start the process early is because all previous losing candidates have conceded the election within 24 hours of the completion of the election. Barring the losing candidate conceding, the GSA administrator has to wait for official results from states to certify their results.

It is not Ms. Murphy's job to certify the election. It is not her decision to send the letter. It is her responsibility to send the letter when she has been given the official result of the election. With no concession and no certified results from the states, she does not have the authority to decide the outcome and send the letter. Yes, the media has projected the election and we all know the results, but that's still not enough for an official act that will cost the federal government a lot of money and give classified information to people who are not yet employees of the federal government.

I love the fact that the man who was the GSA administrator in 2000 called her to offer her his counsel and support. He's the only one who can really speak to her from experience.
https://apnews.com/article/emily-murphy-say-transitional-launch-110eea5e33860598a0e177708081dd47

It may be her responsibility to send the letter, but the authority to decide when to send it is above her pay grade. Blame Trump, not Ms. Murphy.

The language is "apparent election winner".

That's Biden. There is no way for it to be anyone other than Biden. The PA lawsuits are done. The MI shananigans are over. Numerically, it can only be Biden.

Moreover, in 2000, BOTH campaigns were offered transition briefings - that's why what Murphy's claims ring hollow. There are workarounds here if she wants to be a stickler for something that clearly is not going to happen without fraud and deception, but she is refusing to see them. Again, she is no Krebs or Raffensberger (sp?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.

And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.

It is probably terrifying to be her right now.

And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.

It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.

What is the precedent for ascertainment when the opponent has not conceded and the states have not yet done their certifications? Yes, we all know what the math is for the projections that are widely accepted, but what is the clear standard she is supposed to apply. All the rest of government is waiting for her to sign on the dotted line because we know what we can do then, but what is her basis for action?

I am a democrat and on team Biden here but the above poster is not crazy that the GSA Administrator is in a no win situation. I have dealt with Administrator Murphy and she is generally reasonable and an advocate for good government and she received bi partisan approval during her confirmation.

States have never had to ceritfy before the Transition was started in any of our prior elections. She’s doing this for no reason.

The reason that previous GSA administrators have been able to start the process early is because all previous losing candidates have conceded the election within 24 hours of the completion of the election. Barring the losing candidate conceding, the GSA administrator has to wait for official results from states to certify their results.

It is not Ms. Murphy's job to certify the election. It is not her decision to send the letter. It is her responsibility to send the letter when she has been given the official result of the election. With no concession and no certified results from the states, she does not have the authority to decide the outcome and send the letter. Yes, the media has projected the election and we all know the results, but that's still not enough for an official act that will cost the federal government a lot of money and give classified information to people who are not yet employees of the federal government.

I love the fact that the man who was the GSA administrator in 2000 called her to offer her his counsel and support. He's the only one who can really speak to her from experience.
https://apnews.com/article/emily-murphy-say-transitional-launch-110eea5e33860598a0e177708081dd47

It may be her responsibility to send the letter, but the authority to decide when to send it is above her pay grade. Blame Trump, not Ms. Murphy.

So you are just going to normalize her anti-democratic behavior as well as his?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.

And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.

It is probably terrifying to be her right now.

And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.

It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.

What is the precedent for ascertainment when the opponent has not conceded and the states have not yet done their certifications? Yes, we all know what the math is for the projections that are widely accepted, but what is the clear standard she is supposed to apply. All the rest of government is waiting for her to sign on the dotted line because we know what we can do then, but what is her basis for action?

I am a democrat and on team Biden here but the above poster is not crazy that the GSA Administrator is in a no win situation. I have dealt with Administrator Murphy and she is generally reasonable and an advocate for good government and she received bi partisan approval during her confirmation.

States have never had to ceritfy before the Transition was started in any of our prior elections. She’s doing this for no reason.

The reason that previous GSA administrators have been able to start the process early is because all previous losing candidates have conceded the election within 24 hours of the completion of the election. Barring the losing candidate conceding, the GSA administrator has to wait for official results from states to certify their results.

It is not Ms. Murphy's job to certify the election. It is not her decision to send the letter. It is her responsibility to send the letter when she has been given the official result of the election. With no concession and no certified results from the states, she does not have the authority to decide the outcome and send the letter. Yes, the media has projected the election and we all know the results, but that's still not enough for an official act that will cost the federal government a lot of money and give classified information to people who are not yet employees of the federal government.

I love the fact that the man who was the GSA administrator in 2000 called her to offer her his counsel and support. He's the only one who can really speak to her from experience.
https://apnews.com/article/emily-murphy-say-transitional-launch-110eea5e33860598a0e177708081dd47

It may be her responsibility to send the letter, but the authority to decide when to send it is above her pay grade. Blame Trump, not Ms. Murphy.

So you are just going to normalize her anti-democratic behavior as well as his?

It’s all much of a muchness and America clearly doesn’t mean anything to these gasbags. There is no low to which the GOP won’t stoop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.

And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.

It is probably terrifying to be her right now.

And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.

It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.

What is the precedent for ascertainment when the opponent has not conceded and the states have not yet done their certifications? Yes, we all know what the math is for the projections that are widely accepted, but what is the clear standard she is supposed to apply. All the rest of government is waiting for her to sign on the dotted line because we know what we can do then, but what is her basis for action?

I am a democrat and on team Biden here but the above poster is not crazy that the GSA Administrator is in a no win situation. I have dealt with Administrator Murphy and she is generally reasonable and an advocate for good government and she received bi partisan approval during her confirmation.

States have never had to ceritfy before the Transition was started in any of our prior elections. She’s doing this for no reason.

The reason that previous GSA administrators have been able to start the process early is because all previous losing candidates have conceded the election within 24 hours of the completion of the election. Barring the losing candidate conceding, the GSA administrator has to wait for official results from states to certify their results.

It is not Ms. Murphy's job to certify the election. It is not her decision to send the letter. It is her responsibility to send the letter when she has been given the official result of the election. With no concession and no certified results from the states, she does not have the authority to decide the outcome and send the letter. Yes, the media has projected the election and we all know the results, but that's still not enough for an official act that will cost the federal government a lot of money and give classified information to people who are not yet employees of the federal government.

I love the fact that the man who was the GSA administrator in 2000 called her to offer her his counsel and support. He's the only one who can really speak to her from experience.
https://apnews.com/article/emily-murphy-say-transitional-launch-110eea5e33860598a0e177708081dd47

It may be her responsibility to send the letter, but the authority to decide when to send it is above her pay grade. Blame Trump, not Ms. Murphy.

But a concession is just etiquette. It has no actual bearing on anything.

Not true. While a concession is not required, it is an affirmative statement that acknowledges the opposing candidate's victory. In the case of an incumbent conceding, it's tacit approval for the GSA to sign off.

This is yet another case where norms that have been upheld for decades are just being jettisoned. In this case, I'm not surprised.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thrilled that Trump lost. I'm a diehard democrat, but I respect politicians of all parties - I just think Trump is a vile human being.

That said, I agree fully with 13:27 and 13:28. Ms. Murphy is a person - probably a very decent one, regardless of her politics, who finds herself in the middle of an absolute nightmare, and the source of unbelievable vitriol.

Those of you hurling invective at her are no better than those on the other side of the political divide whose behavior you condemn.

Sorry - that's just objectively false. Murphy is choosing to violate multiple Federal statutes, period. She should comply, or quit. She is a criminal who on every level is no different from Trump.

Maybe she should just sign the ascertainment and wait to be fired.

That said, please name the multiple federal statutes that she is violating because I have not seen any identified here.

She has perjury and mismanagement where the Trump hotel is concerned hanging over her heard.

And google is your friend where the congressional statues are concerned. See "presidential transition act"

I highly doubt the perjury and mismangement in connection with the Trump hotel, but that is beside the point for this discussion.

I agree that the statute gives her the authority, I what I disagree with is that there is a federal statute that is violated by her current actions. Those are not the same thing and the hyperbole is not a good look.

I would like her to sign the ascertainment.

Does anyone know whether the ascertainment is something that can be revoked if she signs it and is then fired or resigns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In other news Alex Azar will be out of a job on January 21. He's probably already rich anyway.

Trump is just causing chaos. I hope these people never have a restful night's sleep the rest of their lives. They are wicked traitors.