President Trump won't commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election!

You've seen the headlines. They're the drama of the day, extracted from yesterday's press briefing where a reporter said words that Trump chose not to repeat. It was a trap, and I presume Trump could see the various ways it would function as a trap, depending on how he answered.

Let's look at the original text:

Speaker 2: Win, lose, or draw in this election. Will you commit here today for a peaceful transfer of power after the election... There’s been rioting in many cities across this country.... Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferral of power after the election?

President Donald Trump: Well, we’re going to have to see what happens. You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster.

Speaker 2: I understand that but people are rioting. Do you commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferal of power?

President Donald Trump: We want to have… Get rid of the ballots and we’ll have a very peaceful… There won’t be a transfer frankly, there’ll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.

Let's break it down:

Will you commit here today for a peaceful transfer of power after the election... Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferral of power after the election?

First of all — "making sure." I have a tag for that. It's an insidious phrase, used by politicians to gloss over how they will achieve whatever the end is. Add "commit" to that, and you're deeper into fantasy land — "commit to making sure." Who can do that?! Where is this lack of peace coming from? How could Trump know in advance? It could be a crazy tantrum by people who hate him and who are saying we'll only stop if you resist litigating about voting fraud. Trump needs to reserve his right — and responsibility — to ensure that we get a fair and accurate vote count. He can't be at the mercy of the protesters and rioters. The question is quite obviously a trap, and Trump calmly stakes out appropriate ground:

Well, we’re going to have to see what happens. You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster.

He means the mail-in ballots. He's preserving his right to investigate and litigate over fraud and abnormalities. He goes right to that topic rather than to engage on the reporter's VIOLENCE!!! gambit. The reporter tries again:

I understand that but people are rioting. Do you commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferral of power?

Huh?? People are rioting now, and not over the election which hasn't happened yet. Why bring up these riots? To establish that people have a propensity to riot? How does that connect to a "transferral of power"? There's only a need for a "transferral of power" if Biden wins, and the lack of peace in question seems to be the pro-Biden forces rioting because they think Biden has won or should have won. How does this demand for Trump to "commit to making sure" make any sense except to extract words from him that will be used to force him — under threat of violence — to forgo challenging the apparent result of the election if the initial vote count favors Biden? Well, I'm sure they'd also like Trump to politely relinquish his own victory if Biden comes forward with trays of late mail-in ballots where needed in this or that purple state.

Trump responds, once again stressing the need for a fair election and not getting bullied into caving to a threat of violence. It's quite a tangle, so I'll go phrase by phrase:

We want to have…

This is the beginning of a sentence he doesn't finish, but I presume it would have ended something like "a fair election."

Get rid of the ballots and we’ll have a very peaceful…

Again, he ends before finishing the sentence. The first part sounds like he doesn't even want to have an election, but a sympathetic listener assumes he meant get rid of the mail-in ballots.

There won’t be a transfer frankly, there’ll be a continuation.

Obviously, he stopped after "we’ll have a very peaceful" because he realized that to say "transferral of power" would be to predict that Biden would win. But, no, he predicts "a continuation": He will win.

The ballots are out of control.

He returns to his original response to the question: There's a problem with the mail-in voting.

You know it, and you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.

Everybody knows there's a problem with the voting, he's saying, and he's not going to get deflected from talking about it. He sees the reporter and the Democrats doing battlefield prep for the post-Election Day litigation, and he's not giving away anything. So he avoided that trap, but he couldn't keep them from spinning what they had, and that's why we have this morning's bullshit headline: President Trump won't commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election!

ADDED: According to Axios, "Republicans condemn Trump's refusal to commit to peaceful transfer of power." But there's no condemnation in sight! Here are the quotes:

Mitch McConnell: "The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792."

No condemnation Nothing about threats of violence. No specification of a "transferral." Nothing in this statement that Trump wouldn't go along with. There needs to be a "winner," and then there will be an "orderly transition." There's nothing about the relationship to the recent rioting in the streets, and there's nothing about the possible litigation phase that may be needed before we have a "winner."

Mitt Romney: "Fundamental to democracy is the peaceful transition of power; without that, there is Belarus. Any suggestion that a president might not respect this Constitutional guarantee is both unthinkable and unacceptable."

He says "peaceful," but it refers to what is done by the officials, not the pressure from rioters in the street or any notion that the President can ensure that citizens don't commit acts of violence.

Marco Rubio: "As we have done for over two centuries we will have a legitimate & fair election It may take longer than usual to know the outcome, but it will be a valid one And at noon on Jan 20, 2021 we will peacefully swear in the President."

So that's a nice arrangement of thoughts, done without a reporter trying to put specific words in his mouth. Again, we see an expression of the expectation that we'll have a normal Inauguration Day. Like Trump, Rubio is concerned about difficulties arriving at a proper counting of the votes.

Rob Portman: "Throughout America’s history, the peaceful transition of power has been a hallmark of our democracy. This year, both candidates must commit to abiding by the results, no matter the outcome."

Portman uses the word "commit," but not "commit to making sure" that there's no violence in the streets, merely to commit to "abiding by the results." He doesn't address the fight phase, where the result is still unclear. That will feel agitated and not really "peaceful," and though the officials fighting it out won't commit acts of violence, it's hard to believe that some citizens won't break windows and start fires.

Liz Cheney: "The peaceful transfer of power is enshrined in our Constitution and fundamental to the survival of our Republic. America’s leaders swear an oath to the Constitution. We will uphold that oath."

Same thing.

Steve Stivers: "Nothing defines our Constitutional Republic more than the peaceful transition of power. I've taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and I will uphold that oath."

Same.

John Katko: "[T]he importance of the transition of power to our democracy is larger than any one President and any one election. I will not hesitate to fulfill my responsibility in upholding my oath to the Constitution and protecting our democracy."

Same.

No one condemned Trump's refusal. Not one Republican said Trump was wrong not to voice the words the reporter wanted him to say. The Axios headline is unsupported by the text and disgustingly misleading. Fake news. I'm not going to riot in the street about it, but I'm seriously irked.

And I'm a swing voter in Wisconsin.

ADDED: Further down, the Axios article also has these statements from Republicans, which are even less like condemnation:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the Senate's most senior Republican, told reporters: "I would have the same concern when Hillary Clinton advised Biden not to concede the election."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) told "Fox & Friends" that he "can assure" there will be a peaceful transition of power, adding that "if the Republicans lose we will accept that result" — without directly addressing Trump's statements.

Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.), per Politico's Andrew Desiderio: "He says crazy stuff. We’ve always had a peaceful transition of power. It’s not going to change."

Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.), via CNN's Manu Raju: "[G]o ask every Democrat member and ask them if they stand with Hillary Clinton who says that Biden shouldn't accept the result under any circumstances if he doesn't win."

Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) responded to Cheney's tweet: "Now do the Russia hoax."