logo
Years after questioning his own loss, Pat McCrory has strong words for Jefferson Griffin

Years after questioning his own loss, Pat McCrory has strong words for Jefferson Griffin

Yahoo27-04-2025

Not many prominent Republicans have been critical of Jefferson Griffin's quest to overturn the outcome of the North Carolina Supreme Court race he lost.
But one of the few who have is former Gov. Pat McCrory. He hasn't shied away from his opposition to Griffin's effort, including by speaking out about it on his TV show, 'Unspun.'
McCrory is no stranger to close elections — he lost reelection to Roy Cooper by a thin margin in 2016. In the immediate aftermath of the election, McCrory, his supporters and the North Carolina Republican Party raised questions about the election results and suggested they might have been tainted by fraud. Nearly a month after Election Day, McCrory conceded the race. In doing so, he admitted he still had 'continued questions' about the voting process, but believed that 'the majority of our citizens have spoken.'
Raising questions is one thing, McCrory said. But he believes Griffin has taken it to another level by seeking to retroactively change the rules of an election. And even as a Republican who voted for Griffin, it's something he just can't agree with.
'If they think they need to change the rules for future elections, I have no problem with that, but you can't change the rules after the election is over,' McCrory told me. 'It's like changing the rules of the Super Bowl after the game is over and declaring a different winner. You can't do that.'
McCrory's initial questioning of his loss in 2016 felt like a new political low then, and it thrust North Carolina into the national spotlight. It was wrong in almost every sense: protests filed by McCrory's supporters made flimsy claims maligning innocent voters, and his campaign suggested something nefarious had happened with some people's absentee ballots. Nearly every accusation was thrown out by local elections boards, which at the time were controlled by Republicans.
In subsequent years, some would hold up McCrory as an early adopter of election denialism that eventually became rampant among Republicans. When Donald Trump began propagating lies of a 'stolen election' in 2020, media outlets pointed to McCrory as someone who tried to 'overturn an election' first, with one expert labeling him the 'amateur Trump.'
But in accepting defeat, McCrory did something that Griffin and Trump have not. He readily admits that he lost the election fair and square. That feels almost gracious by today's standards, given the intransigence we see from so many Republicans today.
McCrory maintains that his campaign's actions in 2016 were proper. He was following a process that was outlined by state law, he says. But after a certain point, he knew that the best thing to do was concede, despite calls from his supporters to 'keep fighting,' he told me.
'I understand statistics, and the statistics showed me that it was time to move on, regardless of how much more fight we were willing to give,' McCrory said. 'And I should note, I could not find sufficient fraud which would overcome my deficit. It was tough, but it was the right thing to do.'
It was wrong of McCrory's campaign to claim there was fraud without proof. It hurt the voters who were falsely accused of wrongdoing, and it sowed seeds of distrust in what was clearly a legitimate election. But McCrory is right to say that Griffin has taken it to another level. Like McCrory, Griffin was well within his rights to request a recount, but unlike McCrory, he did not respect its outcome. State law allows Griffin to file protests with election officials, but he did not respect their decisions.
McCrory, for his part, has made it a goal to boost voter confidence in elections. Last year, he helped launch the North Carolina chapter of RightCount, an organization whose goal is to educate people about the election process so that they can trust the results. RightCount has run television ads criticizing Griffin's 'attack on our elections.'
'It's tough to criticize my own party, because there are people who will be upset,' McCrory said. 'But we've got to have the courage to speak out, on both sides of the aisle, even when the outcome doesn't fall our way.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

President Trump set to attend UFC 316 in New Jersey this weekend
President Trump set to attend UFC 316 in New Jersey this weekend

USA Today

time17 minutes ago

  • USA Today

President Trump set to attend UFC 316 in New Jersey this weekend

President Trump set to attend UFC 316 in New Jersey this weekend Show Caption Hide Caption Donald Trump attends UFC 309 at Madison Square Garden President-elect Donald Trump walked into Madison Square Garden alongside UFC CEO Dana White, Elon Musk and Kid Rock for UFC 309. As his feud with tech billionaire and former MAGA darling Elon Musk exploded into public view this week, the White House says President Donald Trump is planning to attend a UFC event in New Jersey this weekend. The event, UFC 316, is slated for Saturday, June 7 at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. The president is scheduled to depart the White House for his golf club in New Jersey Friday afternoon, according to his official schedule, and return to the White House Sunday night. Musk has been high-profile guest for some of Trump's previous visits to the octagon, but the pair had a public falling-out this week after Musk's departure from the Trump administration. 'Siri, play Bad Blood': Internet reacts to Elon Musk and Trump 'breakup' The Trump-Musk fight took off this week when Musk called for Republicans to kill the House-passed tax bill that is a signature part of the second-term president's legislative agenda, calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' Two days later, Trump told reporters at the Oval Office on June 5 that he was 'very disappointed' with Musk and suggested their 'great relationship' was over. In response, Musk took to social media shortly afterward to blast the president, saying Trump wouldn't have won a second term and Republicans would have fared worse in elections in both chambers of the U.S. Congress were it not for his efforts on the 2024 campaign trail, where he poured a quarter of a million dollars into Trump's campaign. The tussle escalated in a back-and-forth between the two men, with Trump suggested going after Musk's companies and their federal contracts, and Musk alleging that Trump's name was in the Justice Department's files related to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The pair's most recent fight appearance was in April, when Trump and Musk sat ringside at UFC 314 in Miami. The president has long attended UFC events, as CEO Dana White was a prominent supporter of Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign. When is UFC 316? UFC 316, which is headlined by Sean O'Malley vs. Merab Dvalishvili, is set to take place at 10 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. The main card is available for pay-per-view on ESPN. More: Sean O'Malley vs. Merab Dvalishvili 2 predictions; full card, odds, picks for UFC 316 Contributing: Riley Beggin, Sudiksha Kochi and Cydney Henderson, USA TODAY. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.

From banning X to funding Dems: All the ways Musk and Trump could hurt each other as they go nuclear
From banning X to funding Dems: All the ways Musk and Trump could hurt each other as they go nuclear

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

From banning X to funding Dems: All the ways Musk and Trump could hurt each other as they go nuclear

An alliance between the two most powerful men in the world seemed destined to blow up into a volatile feud yet somehow held ... until it didn't. Within a few hours on Thursday, the public spat between Donald Trump and Elon Musk exploded into debates over the president's impeachment, calls to launch primary challengers against Republican allies in Congress, and Musk's accusation that the president is implicated in a sexual abuse scandal. But how they choose to escalate from here could have far-reaching impacts — and not just for the fate of a massive bill that sparked their breakup. Trump and Musk command the world's attention, own competing social media platforms, and are each in a position to wield the power of the presidency and spend, and lose, billions of dollars against one another. Trump has already suggested yanking government contracts for Musk's companies Tesla and SpaceX, which are due to receive at least $3 billion in contracts from 17 agencies. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his War Room podcast, Trump ally Steve Bannon urged Trump to retaliate against the world's wealthiest man by, among other things, using the Defense Production Act to take control of SpaceX. 'The U.S. government should seize it,' Bannon said Thursday. Musk ended his 130-day 'special government employee' term in the Trump administration last week after serving as an 'adviser' to the president for the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which Musk unleashed across the federal government to make drastic cuts to spending and the workforce. But Trump left the door open for Musk to return. That 130-day term can be renewed next year. Trump could sever that arrangement at any time. Bannon also called on Trump to strip Musk's top-secret clearances, which he is granted in conjunction with his work on SpaceX and NASA. With more than 220 million followers on a social media platform under his control, Musk can use that audience and ability to shift media narratives against the president to advance his agenda. Trump, whose entire campaign was built on retribution, possesses executive authority to shut X down, according to experts. Trump could declare X a national security risk, 'which would permit him to ban the platform outright,' claims Devan Leos with AI platform Undetectable AI. The president could invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on national security grounds to prevent X from operating, which would likely trigger a high-profile legal battle. 'Musk now faces a difficult choice. He can ban Trump from X in retaliation, but that would almost certainly trigger an executive response from the White House,' according to Leos. The president, meanwhile, owns more than 100 million shares, or roughly 53 per cent, of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of social media platform Truth Social. His stake in the company is worth billions of dollars. Musk was born in South Africa before he emigrated to Canada and later the United States. Last year, The Washington Post reported that the billionaire worked in the country illegally before gaining citizenship. Bannon called on the president to deport him. 'Elon Musk is illegal. He's got to go too,' Bannon said on his War Room podcast. Trump also could wield the power of his office to initiate other investigations under a Department of Justice controlled by his fierce ally Attorney General Pam Bondi, including into allegations of his drug use at the campaign trail and within the administration. The world's wealthiest person spent tens of millions of dollars supporting Trump's 2024 campaign. On Thursday, he took credit for his victory. But this year, his multimillion-dollar effort to support a conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate blew up in his face, with his DOGE efforts tanking his — and Tesla's — appeal. Still, Republican candidates fear being his target. Musk and his allies have threatened to fund primary challenges against any GOP member of Congress who supports legislation he doesn't. 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle?' Musk asked on Thursday. Democrats agree with Musk that Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is a disaster but aren't necessarily welcoming him to the party after the right-wing billionaire torched government agencies and helped but Trump back in office. 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, whose district represents Silicon Valley, told Politico. 'A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.' Liam Kerr, co-founder of the centrist WelcomeFest meeting underway in Washington during the Trump-Musk feud, told the outlet that 'of course' Democrats should be open to Musk. 'You don't want anyone wildly distorting your politics, which he has a unique capability to do. But it's a zero-sum game,' Kerr told Politico. 'Anything that he does that moves more toward Democrats hurts Republicans.' It took just four hours for a feud playing out on two different social media platforms for Musk to drop what he called a 'bomb' against the president. 'Time to drop the really big bomb,' he wrote on X. '[Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' That loaded accusation — Musk's suggestion that Trump was involving the sex offender's trafficking scheme — appeared to be the tipping point in their feud. Musk, who just days ago seemed to have no problem associating with a man he is now alleging is implicated in Epstein's crimes, could launch a humiliation campaign against the president for an audience that has been largely disappointed with the Trump administration's approach to the Epstein case. Far-right influencers have turned on top federal law enforcement officials over the case, accusing Trump of continuing what they believe is a 'deep state' conspiracy theory covering up powerful people. Musk could leverage that hostility. Musk hired a small army of young loyalists and old allies for his government-wide operation to not only eliminate jobs and spending but extract reams of data from millions of Americans. DOGE's unprecedented access to Americans' data 'is alarming, made worse by the complete absence of meaningful oversight,' according to Ben Zipperer, a senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute. 'That unrestrained access to data will likely worsen the problem of identity theft in the United States, which could cost working families tens of billions of dollars annually.' A report from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's office also uncovered more than 100 instances that Musk allegedly abused his role as a 'special government employee' overseeing DOGE to benefit his private interests. Musk violated 'norms at an astonishing pace,' amounting to 'scandalous behavior regardless of whether it subjects him to criminal prosecution.' The report accuses Musk of using the government to promote his businesses, including turning the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom, and allegedly discovered roughly two dozen instances where the government 'entered or explored new lucrative contracts' with the billionaire while halting enforcement actions against his companies.

Trump urges Supreme Court to allow mass layoffs at Education Department
Trump urges Supreme Court to allow mass layoffs at Education Department

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump urges Supreme Court to allow mass layoffs at Education Department

President Donald Trump's administration urged the Supreme Court on Friday to allow officials to gut the Department of Education, a key priority for the president that has been stymied by a series of lower court decisions. The emergency appeal landed at the high court days after the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reverse a lower court order that halted mass firings at the department, which was created during the Carter administration. Trump has filed more than a dozen emergency appeals at the Supreme Court since he returned to office in January. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the administration argues its effort at the Education Department involves 'internal management decisions' and 'eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration's view, are better left to the states.' Though Trump has repeatedly vowed to get rid of the department, the administration's lawyers told the Supreme Court in its filing on Friday that 'the government has been crystal clear in acknowledging that only Congress can eliminate the Department of Education.' Trump ordered mass layoffs at the department earlier this year. The problem for the administration is that the department was created by Congress, and so lower courts have ruled it cannot be unilaterally unwound by the White House. At the same time, the administration does have the power to reduce the size of federal agencies, so long as they can continue to carry out their legal requirements. And that, the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court, is precisely what the administration is attempting to do. 'The Department remains committed to implementing its statutorily mandated functions,' the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court in the appeal. The Education Department is tasked with distributing federal aid to schools, managing federal aid for college students and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws – including ensuring schools accommodate students with disabilities. Most public-school policies are a function of state government. US District Judge Myong Joun, nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden, indefinitely halted Trump's plans to dismantle the agency and ordered the administration to reinstate employees who had been fired en masse. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a teachers' union, school districts, states and education groups. Noting that the department 'cannot be shut down without Congress's approval,' Joun said Trump's planned layoffs 'will likely cripple' it. 'The record abundantly reveals that defendants' true intention is to effectively dismantle the department without an authorizing statute,' he wrote. The Supreme Court is already considering a related emergency case about whether Trump can order mass firings and reorganizations in other federal departments. 'What is at stake in this case,' the 1st Circuit wrote, 'was whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department.' Trump's order would have affected about half of the department's employees, according to court records.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store