It’s so pathetic that we have a POTUS who just spouts off and has no regard for actually researching what he is proposing.
What a shame.
1 Like
Equally shameful, “law and order” GOPers don’t care. They just put up with it.
1 Like
There would be no problem with unarmed sheriffs deputies acting as poll watchers if they were acting under the authority of the party requesting them. My understanding is that each party is authorized to have a specified number of poll watchers present at polling locations and locations where ballots are being processed.
-
They cannot be ordered to do so.
-
“Unarmed” wouldn’t be the criteria, they would have to be off shift or on leave and not dressed in their working uniform. To attempt to do so “in uniform” would be acting in an official capacity.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
Could be, I haven’t looked into it. Each state has its own laws.
In Texas, it is entirely possible they could do it in an official capacity at the direction of county authority, I just don’t know.
If I remember correctly, the Rangers have been dispatched to ensure election integrity in the past; and there were accusations of intimidation/suppression.
At any rate, I think we can agree the President cannot do it.
1 Like
Not clear from that tape that he was talking about federal law enforcement at all. He said that they were going to have sheriff’s and attorney generals as well. Obviously he was talking about local law enforcement, not sending federal law enforcement.
Do you think that is ok?
That local law enforcement be placed at polling booths?
Sure, it that is the decision of the local authorities in charge.
1 Like
By order of the President though?
President Trump is having a press conference right now. He looks and sounds good. Relaxed, confident, positive.
Hyperbolic of course, but: politics.
Thanks for the update.
1 Like
I did not hear him say he would be ordering any of this. I believe that is a mistaken interpretation of what he said.
You’re welcome. Good to see it’s not the raging froth that was predicted last night. I was concerned.
He got it all out through Twitter last night.
Well, that’s good. Maybe he’s learning to let go faster.
Q: Are you going to have poll watchers, and the ability to monitor (polling places)?
A: We’re gonna have sheriffs and we’re gonna have law enforcement …
No “federal”?
He mentions US attorneys but not federal law enforcement. He does say, “… we’re gonna have everybody …” so technically federal law enforcement is included. 
Yes, I can see interpreting “We’re gonna have sheriffs…” to mean he was going to order sheriff’s etc. I can also see it as meaning it in the sense of the American people are going to have sheriff’s etc.
Indeed, he may have said it the wrong way or in a confusing way but before I got all hot about Trump ordering local sheriff’s to do something I think I would wait for something more official.
I would like to see the reaction of locally elected sheriff’s if he tried to order them to do anything.
1 Like
Sure, with a TDS stretch.
Did you correct the OP? Might want to let him know.
Naw. I’m good. Feel free.
