Can you add references to the facts you reference, such as the repeated threats in your first statement?

@WesH I think it's referring to one of the recent interviews, in which the president was asked a question, stayed quited for a while and said "We will see what happens". Which he says a lot actually, but specifically this and this.

"""Brian Karem asked, “Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here today for transferral of power after the election? There’s been rioting in Louisville, there’s been rioting in many cities across the country. Your so-called red and blue states. Will you commit to making sure there’s a peaceful transferral of power after the election?” “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens,” Trump responded."""

@Wes H: Could we simply assume that the great majority of people here read the news at least occasionally, and thus there's no need to provide citations for what is common knowledge?

do you have a link to the vote to adopt the resolution?

Not saying “I will accept the results of an election where I lose” is not the same as saying “I will not accept the results of an election where I lose”. One is being replaced by the other due to fear-mongering.

@JustSomeOldMan Agree completely. That was why I am interested in citations. I've seen many times where has refused to answer the questions, but none in which he has explicitly stated he will not accept the results. Even saying he is concerned about fraud/cheating, is not the same as saying he would not accept the results.

@jamesqf No. We cannot assume that. This question/answer will live on the Stack for a long time. Recent news today is old news tomorrow, just like the Australian wildfires or Kobe Bryant's death, both of which were this year, but seem like they happened in a different era.

Excellent analysis.

@JustSomeOldMan It's not just "not saying" "I will accept the results" etc., it's specifically refusing to say "I will accept the results of an election where I lose." He has also gone on record as saying "The only way I can lose this election is if it is rigged." The claim that this is not tantamount to saying, "I will not accept the results of an election where I lose," could only be advanced by someone extremely partisan, extremely gullible, or both.

@RiversMcForge "The only way I can lose this election is if it is rigged" is commonplace political bravado. Countless candidates in countless elections have stated with certainty they will win. "Partisan" would describe one who needs to interpret this as a call to a pointless, literal revolt.

@JustSomeOldMan "Commonplace political bravado. Countless candidates in countless elections have stated with certainty they will win." It is certainly NOT commonplace, at the presidential level OR at the Senate level OR at the gubernatorial level (I can't speak to House elections as much, but I would assume it's an extreme outlier), for candidates to make these extravagant claims about "rigged elections." What about Trump makes you think he wouldn't literally call for a pointless revolt? He did so as recently as 2012: "More votes equals a loss....Revolution!"

@jamesqf If one is certain he will win and he does not, the election being rigged in some way follows logically. The whole point is no one means it and the candidate is signaling optimism and confidence. Countless claims Trump will incite unprecedented violence have come and gone. Trump plays the media and his opponents like a violin.

@AzorAhai--hehim, S.Res. 100-0, H.Res. 397-5