The REPUBLICAN BLUEPRINT to STEAL the 2024 ELECTION

Author: oromagi ,

Posts

Total: 93
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
Opinion: The Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election

Opinion by J. Michael Luttig
Wed April 27, 2022

Editor’s NoteJ. Michael Luttig, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, formerly served on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for 15 years. He advised Vice President Mike Pence on January 6. 

Nearly a year and a half later, surprisingly few understand what January 6 was all about.

Fewer still understand why former President Donald Trump and Republicans persist in their long-disproven claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Much less why they are obsessed about making the 2024 race a referendum on the “stolen” election of 2020, which even they know was not stolen.

January 6 was never about a stolen election or even about actual voting fraud. It was always and only about an election that Trump lost fair and square, under legislatively promulgated election rules in a handful of swing states that he and other Republicans contend were unlawfully changed by state election officials and state courts to expand the right and opportunity to vote, largely in response to the Covid pandemic.

The Republicans’ mystifying claim to this day that Trump did, or would have, received more votes than Joe Biden in 2020 were it not for actual voting fraud, is but the shiny object that Republicans have tauntingly and disingenuously dangled before the American public for almost a year and a half now to distract attention from their far more ambitious objective.

That objective is not somehow to rescind the 2020 election, as they would have us believe. That’s constitutionally impossible. Trump’s and the Republicans’ far more ambitious objective is to execute successfully in 2024 the very same plan they failed in executing in 2020 and to overturn the 2024 election if Trump or his anointed successor loses again in the next quadrennial contest.

The last presidential election was a dry run for the next.

From long before Election Day 2020, Trump and Republicans planned to overturn the presidential election by exploiting the Electors and Elections Clauses of the Constitution, the Electoral College, the Electoral Count Act of 1877, and the 12th Amendment, if Trump lost the popular and Electoral College vote.

The cornerstone of the plan was to have the Supreme Court embrace the little known “independent state legislature” doctrine, which, in turn, would pave the way for exploitation of the Electoral College process and the Electoral Count Act, and finally for Vice President Mike Pence to reject enough swing state electoral votes to overturn the election using Pence’s ceremonial power under the 12th Amendment and award the presidency to Donald Trump.

The independent state legislature doctrine says that, under the Elections and the Electors Clauses of the Constitution, state legislatures possess plenary and exclusive power over the conduct of federal presidential elections and the selection of state presidential electors. Not even a state supreme court, let alone other state elections officials, can alter the legislatively written election rules or interfere with the appointment of state electors by the legislatures, under this theory.

The Supreme Court has never decided whether to embrace the independent state legislature doctrine. But then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in separate concurring opinions said they would embrace that doctrine in Bush v. Gore, 20 years earlier, and Republicans had every reason to believe there were at least five votes on the Supreme Court for the doctrine in November 2020, with Amy Coney Barrett having just been confirmed in the eleventh hour before the election.

Trump and the Republicans began executing this first stage of their plan months before November 3, by challenging as violative of the independent state legislature doctrine election rules relating to early- and late-voting, extensions of voting days and times, mail-in ballots, and other election law changes that Republicans contended had been unlawfully altered by state officials and state courts in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Michigan.

These cases eventually wound their way to the Supreme Court in the fall of 2020, and by December, the Supreme Court had decided all of these cases, but only by orders, either disallowing federal court intervention to change an election rule that had been promulgated by a state legislature, allowing legislatively promulgated rules to be changed by state officials and state courts, or deadlocking 4-4, because Justice Barrett was not sworn in until after those cases were briefed and ready for decision by the Court. In none of these cases did the Supreme Court decide the all-important independent state legislature doctrine.

Thwarted by the Supreme Court’s indecision on that doctrine, Trump and the Republicans turned their efforts to the second stage of their plan, exploitation of the Electoral College and the Electoral Count Act.

The Electoral College is the process by which Americans choose their presidents, a process that can lead to the election as president of a candidate who does not receive a majority of votes cast by the American voters. Republicans have grown increasingly wary of the Electoral College with the new census and political demographics of the nation’s shifting population.

The Electoral Count Act empowers Congress to decide the presidency in a host of circumstances where Congress determines that state electoral votes were not “regularly given” by electors who were “lawfully certified,” terms that are undefined and ambiguous. In this second stage of the plan, the Republicans needed to generate state-certified alternative slates of electors from swing states where Biden won the popular vote who would cast their electoral votes for Trump instead.

Congress would then count the votes of these alternative electoral slates on January 6, rather than the votes of the certified electoral slates for Biden, and Trump would be declared the reelected president.

The Republicans’ plan failed at this stage when they were unable to secure a single legitimate, alternative slate of electors from any state because the various state officials refused to officially certify these Trump-urged slates.

Thwarted by the Supreme Court in the first stage, foiled by their inability to come up with alternative state electoral slates in the second stage, and with time running out, Trump and the Republicans began executing the final option in their plan, which was to scare up illegitimate alternative electoral slates in various swing states to be transmitted to Congress. Whereupon, on January 6, Vice President Pence would count only the votes of the illegitimate electors from the swing states, and not the votes of the legitimate, certified electors that were cast for Biden, and declare Donald Trump’s reelection as President of the United States.

The entire house of cards collapsed at noon on January 6, when Pence refused to go along with the ill-conceived plan, correctly concluding that under the 12th Amendment he had no power to reject the votes that had been cast by the duly certified electors or to delay the count to give Republicans even more time to whip up alternative electoral slates.

Pence declared Joe Biden the 46th President of the United States at 3:40 a.m. on Thursday, January 7, roughly 14 hours after rioters stormed the US Capitol, disrupting the Joint Session and preventing Congress from counting the Electoral College votes for president until late that night and into the following day, after the statutorily designated day for counting those votes.

Trump and his allies and supporters in Congress and the states began readying their failed 2020 plan to overturn the 2024 presidential election later that very same day and they have been unabashedly readying that plan ever since, in plain view to the American public. Today, they are already a long way toward recapturing the White House in 2024, whether Trump or another Republican candidate wins the election or not.

Trump and Republicans are preparing to return to the Supreme Court, where this time they will likely win the independent state legislature doctrine, now that Amy Coney Barrett is on the Court and ready to vote. Barrett has not addressed the issue, but this turns on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and Barrett is firmly aligned on that method of constitutional interpretation with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, all three of whom have written that they believe the doctrine is correct.

Only last month, in a case from North Carolina the Court declined to hear, Moore v. Harper, four Justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) said that the independent state legislature question is of exceptional importance to our national elections, the issue will continue to recur and the Court should decide the issue sooner rather than later before the next presidential election. This case involved congressional redistricting, but the independent state legislature doctrine is as applicable to redistricting as it is to presidential elections.

The Republicans are also in the throes of electing Trump-endorsed candidates to state legislative offices in key swing states, installing into office their favored state election officials who deny that Biden won the 2020 election, such as secretaries of state, electing sympathetic state court judges onto the state benches and grooming their preferred potential electors for ultimate selection by the party, all so they will be positioned to generate and transmit alternative electoral slates to Congress, if need be.

Finally, they are furiously politicking to elect Trump supporters to the Senate and House, so they can overturn the election in Congress, as a last resort.

Forewarned is to be forearmed.

Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine (thus allowing state court enforcement of state constitutional limitations on legislatively enacted election rules and elector appointments) and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress’ own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.

Although the Vice President will be a Democrat in 2024, both parties also need to enact federal legislation that expressly limits the vice president’s power to be coextensive with the power accorded the vice president in the 12th Amendment and confirm that it is largely ceremonial, as Pence construed it to be on January 6.

Vice President Kamala Harris would preside over the Joint Session in 2024. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have any idea who will be presiding after that, however. Thus, both parties have the incentive to clarify the vice president’s ceremonial role now.

As it stands today, Trump, or his anointed successor, and the Republicans are poised, in their word, to “steal” from Democrats the presidential election in 2024 that they falsely claim the Democrats stole from them in 2020. But there is a difference between the falsely claimed “stolen” election of 2020 and what would be the stolen election of 2024. Unlike the Democrats’ theft claimed by Republicans, the Republicans’ theft would be in open defiance of the popular vote and thus the will of the American people: poetic, though tragic, irony for America’s democracy.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,428
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
None of this will matter after 2022 when Congress declares all Democrats as domestic terrorists and opens up endless investigations, possibly censoring any speech that defies the GOP Congress.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,456
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
--> @oromagi
And I’m old enough to remember 2016 when Hillary Clinton said the election was “stolen” from her


Apparently the electoral college continuing to work as it historically has constitutes a “stolen election”. That, with blaming Russian interference and hosting a sham investigation, which wasted half of an entire presidency

I don’t think Trump lost an election due to fake votes. However, stating that the election wasn’t fair would be entirely accurate. Media loud fabrications and quiet retractions, as well as social media censorship made sure of that
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
2
2
2
--> @Greyparrot
Don't get your hopes too high, but yes I believe civil war is coming at some point in the near future (2-8 years).

The primary reason is because the "big truth" of the months after 2020 election is that regardless of whether cheating sufficient to change the outcome could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nobody in power thought it was their job to disprove it.

A democracy is not defined as a government which is capable of pointing to a big pile of ballots, there needs to be no reasonable doubt that the ballots each represent the will of one citizen. American democracy is dead until that burden of proof is lifted once again. Consequently everyone who thought it was stolen or even that it might have been stolen rightly perceive the constitution as a broken social contract.

Broken contracts do not bind the betrayed parties.

The stakes are too high, the only way this pot won't boil over is radical defederalization.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
None of this will matter after 2022 when Congress declares all Democrats as domestic terrorists and opens up endless investigations, possibly censoring any speech that defies the GOP Congress.
Excellent reasons for lovers of freedom to never, ever vote for any Republican ever again.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 10,246
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
--> @oromagi
Excellent reasons for lovers of freedom to never, ever vote for any Republican ever again.
 Cope
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @bmdrocks21
And I’m old enough to remember 2016 when Hillary Clinton said the election was “stolen” from her
Sure but there's a world a difference between complaining about an election and actively working to overthrow the government.  The former is just democracy  then latter is just treason.


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,428
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
Excellent reasons for lovers of freedom to never, ever vote for any Republican ever again.
You assume there will be a country left to vote in after they retaliate against the Democrats.

Par for the course will be 2 impeachments minimum. I predict 4.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
You assume there will be a country left to vote in after they retaliate against the Democrats.
That's what Putin thought.  Democracy has an inherent strength beyond brute force that tyrants simply can't comprehend.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
Cope
Dope
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,428
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
That's what Putin thought. 
So 16 years at least of unopposed rule. That's comforting
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
So 16 years at least of unopposed rule. That's comforting
Only to evil men

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,428
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
Only to evil men
When good Democrats do nothing.

bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,456
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
--> @oromagi
Sure but there's a world a difference between complaining about an election and actively working to overthrow the government.  The former is just democracy  then latter is just treason.

I think they both did similar things. Maybe to different extents, sure, but she also referred to him as an "illegitimate president". She kept up the lie of being robbed of the presidency for years, the same way Trump has.


I think that casting the blame for erosion of trust in the electoral process does not solely rest with Trump. It predates November 2020.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
2
2
2
--> @oromagi
[bmdrocks21:] And I’m old enough to remember 2016 when Hillary Clinton said the election was “stolen” from her
Sure but there's a world a difference between complaining about an election and actively working to overthrow the government.  The former is just democracy  then latter is just treason.
If the complaint was that the reported election results did not reflect the will of the people (and that is the only valid complaint) it was and is exactly the same thing. In fact if someone believes the election was stolen, I mean really believes it instead of just lying when asked, it of course follows that the true government of the united states is the person who isn't sitting in the big white buildings. Therefore the current occupants are usurpers, and therefore anyone who gives loyalty to them over the democratically elected and corruptly excluded candidates is a traitor.

All of that is implied by saying someone didn't actually win an election, by saying there was enough cheating to change the results, by saying someone is the illegitimate leader.

This isn't a new phenomenon, it's very old; wars of succession and legitimacy are most civil wars. Democrats have always been more willing to make the accusation, Clinton's claims were the first time it came into the mainstream thought in a long time (so yea she started it), and at least the MAGA claims of illegitimacy actually related to the only possible way an election could be illegitimate (false ballots/counts).
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @bmdrocks21
-->@oromagi
Sure but there's a world a difference between complaining about an election and actively working to overthrow the government.  The former is just democracy  then latter is just treason.

I think they both did similar things.
Well then you live in self-deluded ahistorical fantasy world.

  • Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump to congratulate him just three minutes after the last polls closed in Hawaii and Alaska.  The next morning she publicly conceded the election:  "We must accept this result then look to the future.  Donald Trump is our new president.  We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."  Clinton has never taken any legal or political action contradicting her concession, in spite of her rhetoric.
    • Donald Trump is the ONLY Presidential candidate in American History who has failed to congratulate the winner.
    • Donald Trump is the ONLY Presidential candidate in American History who has ever refused to concede (Al Gore withdrew his concession until the courts ruled against him on Florida)
    • Donald Trump is the ONLY Presidential candidate to have declared victory in spite of having lost.  Trump is still telling his supporters that he is the lawfully elected President and plans to return to the White House in late 2022, despite the absence of any lawful venue.
    • We know now that Trump insiders began discussions on Nov 5th on illegal ways to hold on the presidency.
    • We know now that Trump's legal team advised him on November 10th that there was no lawful path remaining to hold on to power and that Trump then began discussing unlawful options.
    • Trump illegally organized an attack to interrupt and overthrow the Constitutionally mandated confirmation process of Jan 6th breaking his oath of office (for the thousandth time, at least) and worked to prevent his own Vice President from carrying out that officer's constitutionally mandated duties by any means necessary.  NATO, the EU and UK have officially classified Trump's assault on Congress as an attempted coup.  The FBI classifies Trump supporters actions on Jan 6th as terrorism.
Maybe to different extents, sure, but she also referred to him as an "illegitimate president". She kept up the lie of being robbed of the presidency for years, the same way Trump has.
  • Bullshit.  In the summer of 2019, Clinton gave an interview where she said "Trump knows he is an illegitimate president" because he got Russia to hack her emails, Republicans suppressed voting rolls, etc.  Even that phrasing suggests concession- whatever the legal or political results, Trump will always know he cheated.  Such a statement is mere free speech and bears no resemblance to Trump's oath-breaking.  If you can't tell the difference between the loyal opposition and disloyal hostility to Democracy itself, then I suggest you are not a sufficiently informed voter.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @ADreamOfLiberty
 believes the election was stolen, I mean really believes it
Belief is easy.  Proof is hard. 

One doesn't need to be well-informed or well-reasoned or capable of challenging one's own presumption to believe something.  One simply has to subjugate reasoning.   It is a far more difficult and therefore worthy act to acknowledge a truth that does not serve one's self-interest than to follow faithfully like rats to the piper.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,456
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
--> @oromagi
Well then you live in self-deluded ahistorical fantasy world.

Neat, I never knew that! You truly do learn something new every day. ^_^

  • Bullshit.  In the summer of 2019, Clinton gave an interview where she said "Trump knows he is an illegitimate president" because he got Russia to hack her emails, Republicans suppressed voting rolls, etc.  Even that phrasing suggests concession- whatever the legal or political results, Trump will always know he cheated.  Such a statement is mere free speech and bears no resemblance to Trump's oath-breaking.  If you can't tell the difference between the loyal opposition and disloyal hostility to Democracy itself, then I suggest you are not a sufficiently informed voter.
Wasn't the whole Russian investigation's conclusion that there was no evidence that Trump told the Russians to hack her emails or really ever telling them to do anything?
I don't know why you are covering for a woman calling a legally elected president "illegitimate". That is incredibly damaging to the democracy you purportedly love so much. I don't see how free speech is even in question. Yes, what she said is free speech. It is also the free speech of any Republican who says that Democrats removed  votes and replaced them with fake votes. That act of sowing doubt about the legitimacy of the ruling president's power is also damaging to democracy. That is exactly what Hillary did by saying, in essence, that Trump wasn't properly elected.

Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump to congratulate him just three minutes after the last polls closed in Hawaii and Alaska.  The next morning she publicly conceded the election:  "We must accept this result then look to the future.  Donald Trump is our new president.  We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."  Clinton has never taken any legal or political action contradicting her concession, in spite of her rhetoric.

So she had better optics, I guess? It's good that she conceded the day after, obviously. But then parading around calling him illegitimate for years afterwards makes it seem like it was all disingenuous. She probably tool no legal actions because there weren't new legislation instituted because of "Covid concerns" just before the election that benefitted her opponent's party.


  • Donald Trump is the ONLY Presidential candidate in American History who has failed to congratulate the winner.
  • Donald Trump is the ONLY Presidential candidate in American History who has ever refused to concede (Al Gore withdrew his concession until the courts ruled against him on Florida)
He did concede by acknowledging that a new administration would be taking over.

plans to return to the White House in late 2022,
I do not see mention of this anywhere.

Trump illegally organized an attack to interrupt and overthrow the Constitutionally mandated confirmation process of Jan 6th breaking his oath of office (for the thousandth time, at least) and worked to prevent his own Vice President from carrying out that officer's constitutionally mandated duties by any means necessary. 
He organized a rally. He did not organize an attack. Could you please provide me with his attack plans drawn out on battle maps? Perhaps show me where he said to break into the Capitol and threaten people?

  • We know now that Trump insiders began discussions on Nov 5th on illegal ways to hold on the presidency.
  • We know now that Trump's legal team advised him on November 10th that there was no lawful path remaining to hold on to power and that Trump then began discussing unlawful options.
And which illegal means did he discuss? Because it doesn't seem like he did anything illegal. He used courts to review rules in PA, call for vote audits, etc. which he is completely allowed to do.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,428
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @bmdrocks21
That is incredibly damaging to the democracy you purportedly love so much.
Exactly. Evil thrives when good Democrats do nothing.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
2
2
2
--> @oromagi
 believes the election was stolen, I mean really believes it
Belief is easy.  Proof is hard. 
Especially when people intentionally don't keep records and destroy records they did make.

If you deposited your money in a bank, and then they claimed you didn't; and then you demand an audit to prove they didn't steal the money "Prove it" is the wrong response from the bank.

By its nature a bank sells trust and accountability. A bank that doesn't provide accountability is a fraudulent bank.

By the same token a democratic government by its nature advertises accurate elections. A democratic government that can't prove or at least verify the accuracy of its elections is not democratic after all.

This is why you cut off the other clause in my sentence. Because none of the theories of cheating were disproven, most weren't even addressed, they were supported by exactly the amount of evidence one could reasonably hope for. All of that is a proven fact.

Much as you can't defeat a pro-life argument without acknowledging the claim that the fetus has rights, you cannot bypass the claims of untrustworthy elections. The concept of insurrection depends on agreement on what the legitimate government is.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @bmdrocks21
-
Wasn't the whole Russian investigation's conclusion that there was no evidence that Trump told the Russians to hack her emails or really ever telling them to do anything?
A perfect example of your self-deluded ahistorical fantasy:  the single most salient fact of the Trump presidency and you blithely believe the polar opposite of the Mueller Report's mostly uncontested conclusions.

"The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.  It also identifies  links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.....Investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined  The report describes ten episodes where Trump obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected, noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation".  The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly, referencing impeachment."
That is, Mueller documents 11 felonies committed by Trump, each meriting a separate 20 year prison sentence and advises Congress that there is sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump obstructed justice to merit impeachment hearings.   Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American"

The report documents 170 incidents where Trump and 18 of his men made contacts with Russian intelligence during the campaign but there's almost no records of what was discussed and when the 19 men are asked what they were up to, they invariably lie about it.  So, for example, we  know that Roger Stone knew that Wikileaks had the Podesta emails as early as April 2016, that Stone was DM'ing the hacker, Guccifer 2.0 and that Stone was reporting his conversations with Assange and Guccifer 2.0 (both employed by Russian intelligence at the time) to Trump in person.  We know that just minutes after the "grab 'em by the pussy" tapes broke, Stone texted "drop the Podesta emails immediately" and Russian agent Guccifer 2.0 immediately responded by dropping the emails.  We know that Stone was convicted of seven counts of obstruction of justice and lying under oath about this transaction with Russian intelligence that Trump was extraordinarily eager to pardon.  Any rational person would conclude direct conspiracy and coordination but without some actual acknowledgement or receipt by Guccifer 2.0, such a charge would not likely end in a conviction in court.

There's a wide gap between obviously guilty and convictably guilty.  Think OJ Simpson- just because Simpson was found "not guilty" in a court of law ought not be mistaken by any rational person as evidence that OJ Simpson was not always and certainly the murderer.  No detectives wasted any time looking for some other culprit just because the case against Simpson was so badly handled.

It is not undermining democracy to say that OJ Simpson was obviously guilty.  It would be undermining democracy to try to lynch OJ Simpson in the name of justice.  See the difference?  That is the same difference between Clinton and Trump.

He did concede by acknowledging that a new administration would be taking over.
Only a toadie would mistake that mealy mouthed mumbling on Jan 7th as a concession.  Certainly Trump refutes your assertion that he conceded so why would you believe otherwise? 

He organized a rally. He did not organize an attack. Could you please provide me with his attack plans drawn out on battle maps? Perhaps show me where he said to break into the Capitol and threaten people?
Let's accept the eyewitness testimony of Senior Republican leadership:

  • MITCH McCONNELL
  • January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They use terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of domestic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the center floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chatted about murdering the vice president. They did this because they’d been fed wild, falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth because he was angry. He lost an election. Former President Trump’s actions preceded the riot or a disgraceful dereliction of duty.... There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.  The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the president's intemperate language on January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged quote “Trial by combat”. It was also the entirely manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe. The increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen. Some secret coup by our now president.  The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. Sadly many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally, but that was different. That’s different from what we saw. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voter’s decision or else torch our institutions on the way out. The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence actually began.  Whatever our ex president claims he thought might happen a day, whatever right reaction he’s says he meant to produce by that afternoon we know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name, these criminals who are carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. It was obvious that only President Trump could end this. He was the only one who could. Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the administration. The president did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn’t take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. No, instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election. Now, even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger. Even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters their president sent a further tweet, attacking his own vice president.....74 million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. One person did, just one.....President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. Unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office.  [Trump] didn’t get away with anything, yet. Yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.  The Senate’s decision today does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day. It simply shows that senators did what the former president failed to do. We put our constitutional duty first.
  • KEVIN McCARTHY
  • "Trump bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding"
  • LIZ CHENEY
  • "Trump has continued to suggest the violence on Jan. 6 was justified, when he says Nov. 3 was the insurrection and Jan. 6 was a protest, what he’s doing is continuing to undermine our electoral process, You know, he’s gone to war with the rule of law and I think that’s also really important for people to understand."

And which illegal means did he discuss? Because it doesn't seem like he did anything illegal. He used courts to review rules in PA, call for vote audits, etc. which he is completely allowed to do.
  • So far, ten of Trump's lawyers have been sanctioned or disbarred for defrauding  the courts and abusing the legal process in pursuit of Trump's manifestly falsified claims. 
  • John C. Eastman tried to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence that he could overturn the election results on January 6, 2021by throwing out electors from "7 states" – presumably Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, along with either New Mexico or the federal district Washington, D.C. Slates of electors declaring Trump the winner actually were submitted from the seven states, but the National Archives did not accept the unsanctioned documents and they did not explicitly enter the deliberations.  Under Eastman's scheme, Pence would have declared Trump the winner with more Electoral College votes after the seven states were thrown out, at 232 votes to 222.
  • On January 2, 2021, Trump held a one-hour phone call with Raffensperger.  Trump was joined by chief of staff Mark Meadows, trade adviser Peter Navarro, Justice Department official John Lott, law professor John C. Eastman, and attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Cleta Mitchell and Kurt Hilbert. Raffensperger was joined by his general counsel Ryan Germany. On January 3, The Washington Post and other media outlets obtained a recording of this phone conversation.  During the phone call, Trump maintained falsely that he had won Georgia by "hundreds of thousands of votes", insisting that the certified election results were wrong. He said that Raffensperger should "reevaluate" the election's results, citing a variety of different conspiracy theories regarding voting in the state. Raffensperger, in response, answered that the election results in that state were correct and legitimate, and that Trump "had got his data wrong".  During his attempts to pressure Raffensperger into changing the election results, Trump said, "I just want to find 11,780 votes", the minimum number needed to overcome Biden's advantage in Georgia. Trump also tried to intimidate Raffensperger, hinting that Raffensperger and his attorney could face a possible criminal investigation. Trump said, "You know, that's a criminal offense. And you know, you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you."
    • That is, Trump personally threatened to throw an honest  Republican election official in jail if he didn't falsely invent 11,780 votes.  This felony alone, caught on tape and denied by nobody should earn Trump a 20 year sentence.



oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @ADreamOfLiberty
Especially when people intentionally don't keep records and destroy records they did make.
Sounds like you have some kind of accusation to make but then you don't make it.  Why?

 All of that is a proven fact.
What is?  Your post is so vague I have no idea what you're talking about.

ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
2
2
2
--> @oromagi
Especially when people intentionally don't keep records and destroy records they did make.
Sounds like you have some kind of accusation to make but then you don't make it.  Why?
Oh I'll make it: Ballots, ballot mailers (the most important bits) were discarded or destroyed before audits could be done and I believe that would not have been done (or done nearly as quickly) save for the intention to prevent an audit from ever occurring. The IRS keeps records for decades, all the space and time in the world when it's about stealing money, so little when it's about democracy.

 All of that is a proven fact.
What is?  Your post is so vague I have no idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps I could have been clearer.

[ADOL:] Because none of the theories of cheating were disproven, most weren't even addressed, they were supported by exactly the amount of evidence one could reasonably hope for. All of that is a proven fact.
The sentence immediately preceding the one you were uncertain about is what is being referenced. As I read it back it's obviously false in the "none of the theories", some of the theories could be disproved in seconds. It is a proven fact that major theories on cheating were and remain today plausible, and supported by the scope and type of evidence that could be reasonably expected.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 101
Posts: 7,220
7
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
7
10
11
--> @ADreamOfLiberty
Oh I'll make it: Ballots, ballot mailers (the most important bits) were discarded or destroyed before audits could be done and I believe that would not have been done (or done nearly as quickly) save for the intention to prevent an audit from ever occurring.
so vague.  What election?  What jurisdiction?  What evidence?   Why are you using the passive voice?  Who did what when where how?

It is a proven fact that major theories on cheating were and remain today plausible
I agree that Republicans were openly cheating in the 2020 election.  

PLAUSIBLE is the superficial appearance of likelihood in the absence of proof.  To say that "it a proven fact that x is plausible" is deliberately deceptive language-  there is no doubt whatsoever that x might have happened, etc.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,428
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @ADreamOfLiberty
And do you know what happens when a bank loses trust? Same thing that happens to a sacrosanct Government.