To close out her interview of Senator JD Vance (R-OH), NBC’s Kristen Welker trotted out the tired election acceptance question asked of every Republican appearing on an Acela Media Sunday talk show, and especially of Trump vice presidential shortlisters. 

Watch as Vance flips the question on its head and shuts Welker down (click "expand"):

NBC MEET THE PRESS

JULY 7th, 2024

10:30 AM

KRISTEN WELKER: Well, here we are, about a week before the Republican convention. Before I let you go: can you say unequivocally- unequivocally, here and now, that you will accept the results of the 2024 election no matter what they are?

JD VANCE: So long as it's a free and fair election, Kristen, of course, we will. We will use constitutional processes to challenge issues if we think there are issues, but if it's a free and fair election we will do what the Constitution requires, we will respect the results and I expect these results are going to be to reelect Donald Trump.

WELKER: It was a free and fair election in 2020, Donald Trump took his concerns to court. He lost in court but he has not conceded. Do you understand that when you refuse to commit unequivocally, that feeds into people's concerns- skepticism about the nation's electoral process?

VANCE: Well, Kristen, I don't agree with that, actually. I think that feeding into people's concerns about our electoral process is one half of America's political segment, they won't support legislation that makes it harder for illegal aliens to vote. They won’t support universal voter ID in our elections even though you have to present I.D. to do almost anything in this country. I think taking people’s concerns seriously about election fraud…

WELKER: Senator…Senator…Senator, it’s already against the law…

VANCE: …is the way to reinforce security and confidence in our elections.

WELKER: Senator, it's already against the law for non-citizens to vote. But just on that very point: when you, when others refuse to say, “yes, we will accept the election results”, do you understand how that undermines people's confidence in the electoral system?

WELKER: But Kristen, what I just said is I don't agree with that. What I think actually undermines people's confidence in the electoral system is when the media is incurious about obvious examples of problems in our electoral system. I think we’ve got great elections, but a lot of things could be better in certain states. I want to work to make that happen so the American people have greater confidence in our elections. That’s what I’ll keep doing. 

This week, the House of Representatives takes up legislation requiring proof of United States citizenship prior to voting in elections. Axios notes that Democrats are whipping against this bill:

State of play: The House is set to vote next week on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, which would require "documentary proof of United States citizenship" to vote in federal elections.

That could include a passport, a photo ID card that proves a voter was born in the U.S. or another form of photo ID along with supporting documentation such as a birth certificate, the bill says.

The legislation would require non-citizens to be removed from voter registration rolls, require election officials to ask voter registration applicants for proof of citizenship and open them up to legal consequences if they do not.

Driving the news: In a whip question — a roundup of the coming week's votes with instructions for how leadership wants rank-and-file members to vote — House Minority Whip Katherine Clark's (D-Mass.) office told House Democrats they are "urged to VOTE NO" on the bill.

Additionally, the majority-Democrat Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed a prior ruling limiting placement of ballot drop boxes. This is the backdrop against which Welker makes her baity election questions.

But these issues never make it into Welker’s line of questioning. To the blinkered Regime Media, election acceptance means that Republicans must supinely accept an election result regardless of outcome and evidence of trickery, and without questioning last-minute rule changes. Anyone legitimately questioning these is smeared as an “election denialist” or, God forbid, an ‘insurrectionist". 

Vance sees through this nonsense, and forcefully brings the issue back to election integrity, which Welker can't counter.

The rest of the interview followed this template, whether on abortion, Project 2025, the vice presidential selection process, or the Supreme Court ruling clarifying presidential immunity- which the left and their media enablers are trying to spin as some weird extra constitutional carte blanche authority.

In a week where all focus is both on the president’s declining cognitive ability and the media’s failure to conceal it from the American public, Welker tried albeit briefly to shift focus- and failed badly.