“Okay, just give me ONE REALLY GOOD REASON to NOT vote for Donald Trump!”
Hey, I can DO that! (In fact, I could give you LOADS of them, although I’d HOPE all you’d NEED is just this ONE.)
PRESIDENT WHATZIZNAME, AMERICA’S FOUNDERING FATHER? ... Sure, he was a great general during the Revolution. But no, although he may look like the kind of American hero who we might someday see becoming president, we need to remember that appearances can be deceiving! (H.B. Hall 1879 engraving, after John Trumbull, via Wikipedia; Public Domain)
“THREE YEARS AFTER A MOB OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS STORMED THE U.S. CAPITOL AND HALTED THE CERTIFICATION OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BELIEVE IT WAS AN ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY THAT SHOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN, ACCORDING TO A NEW POLL.”
Okay, maybe not a spanking new poll. It’s from an NY1 report about a then-recent Washington Post and University of Maryland poll, published back in January.
Still, this was the most recent poll I could find that addressed what Americans think (thought?) of what was really happening on January 6th of 2021, which is (was?) this:
Fifty-five percent of voters said the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was an attack on democracy that should never be forgotten, while 43% said too much has been made of it and believe it’s time to move on.
... members of the two major parties saw it differently, with 86% of Democrats saying the attack should never be forgotten and 72% of Republicans saying it’s time to turn the page.
(Bold emphasis mine.)
“OKAY,” YOU MIGHT BE ASKING, “BUT WHAT’S ALL THAT GOT TO DO WITH GEORGE WASHINGTON?”
Aha!! That’s easy! The answer is, nothing!! But why do you ask?
No, wait!! Did you think that picture up top was George Washington??
I must confess, I made that same mistake at first! (Maybe it was the Revolutionary-War uniform and powdered wig?) But no, that’s actually General Benedict Arnold! (Yeah, that guy!)
For any of you who might need reminding, Benedict Arnold was an American-born man who went from being ...
1. An EXTRAORDINARILY-talented major general in the Continental Army of the United Colonies — (and later, after mid-1776, of the “United States”, once those individual “colonies” declared themselves to be individual “states”) — winning hugely important battles right and left in his fight for our freedom and independence.
Born in Norwich, Connecticut to a well-off merchant who later became a drunkard and lost the family’s fortune;
hearing the beat of a drum, but barely old enough to fight in the French and Indian War, he joined and served only 13 days;
just before the Revolution, he was a member of the Sons of Liberty, and later, with help from Ethan Allen, he and his men captured Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York, then dragged its cannons back to Boston to help with the American siege of the British;
persuaded George Washington to let him lead an attack on Quebec City, in which he received a serious leg-wound that plagued him for the rest of his life, yet he was still able to hastily build and command a 17-ship American fleet of gunboats in Lake Champlain in the Battle of Valcour Island, a technical defeat that nevertheless successfully thwarted British plans to invade the upper Hudson River Valley;
helped break the British siege of Fort Stanwix by fooling the British into thinking his force was larger than it was, which led to ...
his own stunning success in the Battles of Saratoga, a huge American victory that induced France to join us in our war with Britain — although all his credit was stolen by British-born American General Horatio Gates, who reportedly spent much of those battles in his tent.
George Washington and Benedict Arnold were big fans of one another. Washington called Arnold his “fighting general”, although he might not yet have realized how high-maintenance this guy would become after he gave him time off from the war in the largely peaceful assignment of being in charge of Philadelphia, all just to help heal his leg wounds.
But Washington could not protect Arnold from the back-stabbing of fellow generals with political connections who kept getting promoted ahead of him.
Arnold’s enemies even set him up for in court-martial that found him guilty of some minor charges, but that also ordered his good buddy, Washington, to reluctantly reprimand him — and that was the last straw.
Arnold then contacted the British, offering to hand over the American fortifications at West Point on the Hudson River which kept New England separated from the other colonies, in exchange for £20,000 (worth about $5.6-million in 2024).
Why did Arnold do it? Most theorists implicate his famously-charming teenaged wife, Peggy Shippen, a Philadelphia Tory — although, yes, while she did relay his invisible-ink letters to the British spy-chief, Major John André (who had once “courted” her!), it doesn’t sound like Benedict needed much persuading, since the lure of military greatness had him hooked from that very first “drum beat" — and, given the unfair treatment by his fellow Americans, coupled with the thinness of his skin and a seemingly outsized desire for wealth, he didn’t hesitate to donate his expertise to anyone, even his country’s enemy, who might be more appreciative of it.
HE'D EVEN SWORN A LOYALTY OATH AT VALLEY FORGE IN 1778 ... to, quote, “fupport, maintain and defend the faid United States ... according to the beft of [hif] fkill and underftanding.” (It’s no wonder they couldn’t hold him to it! Who could even figure out what the heck he swore loyalty to?) (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration via Wikipedia)
In short? It seems Benedict Arnold had no qualms about valuing himself and his career over his country, plain and simple.
But his West Point plot failed! Major André was caught in the act and hung, while Arnold escaped with his life through enemy lines...
to then become ...
2. A brigadier general (technically, a demotion) for the Kingdom of Great Britain, taking with him his glowing military talents, although deciding instead to use them on behalf of the very same people he’d so ruthlessly been killing in battle, on the somewhat ironic grounds that they had been trying to destroy his country and all it stood for! So then?
“In December 1780, he led a force of 1,600 troops into Virginia under orders from [British Lieutenant General Henry] Clinton, where he captured Richmond by surprise and then went on a rampage through Virginia, destroying supply houses, foundries, and mills.”
If he was trying to attract attention, it worked:
“Washington gave orders to Lafayette to summarily hang Arnold should he be captured. ... In conversation with one of Lafayette's officers sent to confer on prisoner exchanges, Arnold is said to have asked what would happen to him should he be captured. The response was, ‘We should cut off the leg which was wounded in the country's service, and we should hang the rest of you.’ "
WHY ONLY HIS LEG? ... Just a humorous diss from some Union Civil War general who chose to honor the only patriotic fragment of the man deemed worth honoring. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument)
After Virginia, Arnold headed north to Connecticut:
o “He led a force of more than 1,700 men which burned most of New London to the ground on September 4 ...
o “[His men] also attacked and captured Fort Griswold across the river in Groton, Connecticut, slaughtering the Americans after they surrendered following the Battle of Groton Heights — all of which was done just a few short miles down the Thames River from Norwich, where Arnold grew up.”
When the war ended, Arnold moved his family to England where he was welcomed and honored by King George III, but virtually nobody else.
Because he was also despised back in the states, the family moved to Canada to start some businesses, where his neighbors also learned to hate him, so in the darkness of night, the family slinked back to Britain.
He kept applying for British military appointments, unsuccessfully, until he died of dropsy in 1802. Although relatively famous over there, few even knew he died, distracted as they were by other events in Europe.
SO WHAT’S MY POINT?
Just this:
That there once was a time in America when it wouldn’t occur to any of us to treat anyone who tried to destroy our country (and his own) by overthrowing it, with anything but the contempt and disrespect they so richly deserved.
And yet, the very last thing that might occur to Americans back then would be to even contemplate electing Benedict Arnold as America’s president!
“Oh! Okay”, you hypothetically concur, but then ask, “so what IS this so-called ‘only reason’ anyone would ever need to not vote for Donald Trump for president?”
Simply this:
Just like Benedict Arnold, someone whose name, to this day, is synonymous with “American traitor”?
Donald trump tried to OVERTHROW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, your nation and mine — and his! — and in the process, would have DESTROYED THAT WHICH MAKES AMERICA AMERICA — its SELF-GOVERNANCE,
God-freaking-dammit!!
... AND SHOULDN’T THAT BE ALL YOU NEED??
You might envisage that TAKING AWAY THE VOTE FROM ALL OF US SELF-GOVERNING AMERICANS would be like REMOVING ONE OF THE LEGS FROM A THREE-LEGGED STOOL! You would still have a stool, but it’d be TOTALLY USELESS to use as a STOOL!!!
Those of you who were sleeping in the back row in school might not realize this, but when we Americans talk about our “democracy”, we’re talking about THE INDISPENSABLE FEATURE that gives our country its reason-to-be!
BUT HERE’S SOMETHING WORTH THINKING ABOUT: If Donald Trump had attempted his coup during the Revolutionary War, General George Washington would capture him and summarily have him hung!
“Okay, but first of all,” you might be asking, “can we really be that positive that Donald Trump actually WAS trying to overthrow the country?”
True, that!
Maybe he wasn’t doing it on purpose, maybe he wasn’t even aware of what he was doing? Maybe he’s not really a villain, maybe he’s just a closet functional illiterate with some kind of live worm in his brain? Maybe we’ve been unfair!
Still, why should that matter to us?
Whichever! To many of your fellow Americans, it’s self-evident that he did, but I’m guessing some of you who might ask such a question are among a sizeable minority of Americans who don’t see it that way?
If so, maybe we all need to take a walking-tour through what all those other people are thinking, since, oddly enough, it’s hardly ever discussed lately.
SPEAKING OF WHICH?
Yes, you may not ever even hear it described as trying to “overthrow the country”instead of the more the somewhat-less provocative, “tried to overturn an election” — but “overthrow the country” is what we call it whenever a nation’s leader loses his reelection, then pretends he actually won it and immediately launches various schemes to keep the real president from taking power.
(And yes, in fact, this seems to be happening in Venezuela, even as we speak!)
OKAY, BUT CAN WE JUST PAUSE HERE FOR A MOMENT? (CONTROL ROOM? PLEASE, JUST HIT “PAUSE”.)
I do hear you, loud and clear:
“OH, FOR GOD’S SAKE!! DO I HAVE TO SUFFER THROUGH ANOTHER FREAKING MAYBE 10,000-WORD, WAY-TOO-LONG ARTICLE FROM THIS ‘RICK’ PERSON?”
So here’s what you do:
You already SAW all the Benedict Arnold stuff, and I assume you got my point — he was a traitor who fought to overthrow America, and so, once that Revolution was over, you think we should have let bygones-be-bygones and made Benedict Arnold our president? No!! Right?
And I guess you understand my further thoughts on this, that ...
DONALD TRUMP, WHO TAKES THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COUNTRY ABOUT AS SERIOUSLY AS BENEDICT ARNOLD DID, ALSO TRIED TO UNDO THAT SAME COUNTRY, AND THAT IF YOU WOULDN’T CHOOSE THE INFAMOUS BENEDICT ARNOLD TO BE THE “SUPREME LEADER OF AMERICA”, NEITHER SHOULD YOU GIVE THE JOB TO AMERICA’S PRESENT-DAY TRAITOR, DONALD TRUMP?
Well, that was pretty much my main argument, so now, you’re good! Feel free to stop reading at this point and go do something else!
(Oh ... and thanks for dropping by today!!)
UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU DON’T MIND SEEING THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT, AND MORE EVIDENCE OF THE FAILED SELF-COUP HE TRIED TO USE THAT VERY POSSIBLY WOULD HAVE ENDED THE COUNTRY?
In that case, keep reading.
(And thanks for staying, assuming that’s what you’re doing.)
Here are the things Donald Trump has been trying to (somewhat stealthily) do to America, roughly in chronological order, arbitrarily starting with this.
“BUT IF PERCHANCE WE LOSE THE ELECTION? THEN WE GO WITH — (VOILA!!) — PLAN-B!!” ... Maybe not so coincidentally? Way back even before Citizen Trump got himself accidentally elected president in 2016, he had been telling people his favorite movie was “Citizen Kane” and, reportedly, at least in one instance, (see below), said he was particularly fond of this particular scene. (Public Domain)
In April of last year, Cambridge University Press published “The Making Sense of Politics, Media, and Law” — (appropriately subtitled “Rhetorical Performance as Invention, Creation, Production”) — by Gary Watt of the University of Warwick.
This comes from that book:
Tim O’Brien recounts an airplane flight with Trump when he was conducting research for his 2005 biography TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald. On the flight, Trump watched the 1941 cinematic masterpiece Citizen Kane, acted and directed by Orson Welles. Trump is said to have paused the film at one point and said to O’Brien, “this is an amazing scene”.
The scene is the one in which a newspaper owned by Charles Foster Kane runs the headline “Fraud at the polls” after Kane loses a political election.
Fast forward to a decade later, when Trump was knee-deep in ...
... his third televised presidential debate with Hillary Clinton (20 October 2016), in which the convenor asked Trump if he was prepared to commit to the principle of peacefully conceding to Clinton in the event of losing the election.
Trump replied, “I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense, okay?”
This was probably not the first time Trump pulled this stunt, but still ...
The fact that he won in 2016 meant that the Citizen Kane script could be kept under wraps on that occasion, but when he lost the 2020 election it was duly dusted off.
The following is a tick-tock of Trump’s scheme.
(Note: Bold and italic emphases found within indented blockquotes are mine, although so are all those not found there.)
First, a tiny preamble?
What if Donald Trump’s “election racket” were run by the Mafia?
Plan-A would be the part where the mob invests in what might be called “legitimate business” — which, in our case, means simply trying to win the election on the up-and-up, without cheating.
But whether or not he were eventually to win that contest, he still kept covering all his bases by baselessly “predicting“ that it would be fraudulent. But evidence? Proof? Not needed, thank you, as long as enough followers (whether innocently deluded or maliciously mischievous) join his parade!
Claiming competitions will be rigged when he might not like the outcome is a lie he’d go to throughout his life, not just in his political career but even back in his Apprentice days, with the Emmys.
(Where’d Trump learn all this evil nonsense? Good arguments have been made that he learned it all from famed mob-connected and McCarthyism lawyer Roy Cohn, who is claimed (at least in the movie) to have taught him to (1) always attack, (2) never admit wrongdoing, and (3) always claim victory, even if defeated.)
Okay (and this is where the fun begins!) but what if Trump loses the election?
No worries!! He has that covered!
A failure of Plan-A automatically triggers Plan-B — renamed “Stop the Steal” by his side in 2020 but the “Big Lie” by the rest of us — which begins with him refusing to concede defeat while loudly pretending to have won the election that, for example, late polls in advance of the 2020 finish were predicting he’d lose by an average of around 8 to 10%. (Biden’s win was by 4.45%.)
But no matter to Trump himself, since he had already started covering all those logical bases by saying, “ ‘the only way’ he could lose would be if the election was ‘rigged’ and repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power after the election” — a core historical tradition in small-d democratic governance that, to be charitable, Donald Trump might not have the sophisticated understanding to appreciate has been a necessary element of the almost unique survival of U.S. self-government down through the centuries, ever since defeated Federalist incumbent John Adams handed the nation over to his victorious Republican rival, Thomas Jefferson, in 1801.
So was the 2020 election rigged, as Trump claimed?
Immediately following the election, Trump hired a guy to prove it was rigged, although maybe the guy didn’t fully understand his assignment. Ken Block, the man Trump hired, penned an Op-Ed in USA TODAY in January of this year to state he had
... found no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of any election. That message was communicated directly to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
This is not to say that he didn’t find anything at all:
The small amount of voter fraud I found was bipartisan, with about as many Republicans casting duplicate votes as Democrats.
Block claims that fraud is actually hard to hide:
“What these claims don’t take into account is that voter fraud is detectable, quantifiable and verifiable.”
“I have yet to see anyone offer up ‘evidence’ of voter fraud from the 2020 election that provides these three things,” he added. “If voter fraud had impacted the 2020 election, it would already have been proven.”
(CURIOUS ASIDE: Given Trump’s history of stiffing vendors who don’t deliver the goods that he wants — see here and here — I’m wondering if he ever paid Block’s invoice!)
So what was Plan-B?
Part of the plot involved searching for any evidence of election fraud in the so-called swing states (or maybe just pretending to?), possibly on the off chance of creating just enough doubt to give cover to anyone who wanted to help the plotters create the chaos they needed.
But as you probably know, the results of that wild-goose-chase was a goose egg:
In fact, such allegations have been rejected by dozens of judges across the country, a number of whom noted in their decisions that Trump and his allies failed to put forward evidence to support such claims.
The minimal number of criminal investigations that have so far come out of the November vote further reinforce the absence of sweeping vote fraud schemes.
Not that actually finding anything wouldn’t have been nice, but despite all Trump’s lawsuits being rejected — more than 60! — the truth of his accusations was not required for him to succeed. The seeds of the conspiracy were sewn back then, and are still yielding a harvest in 2024.
And by the way, how can we be sure Trump was asking Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on that phone call, to “create” votes for him that didn’t already exist?
Maybe just a hunch, based on words he chose to use. Here’s Trump just days after the election, with his evidence-free accusation about how people “find” Biden votes:
“They want to find out how many votes they need, and then they seem to be able to find them. They wait and wait and then they find them," Trump said two days after Election Day.
Fast forward to Trump’s now-famous request during the Georgia phone call:
“So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have.”
The implication seems to be that, if they can find Biden votes, why can’t you just find Trump votes?
Or maybe even, If Democrats can cheat for Biden, why can’t you Republicans cheat for me?
But as the futile search for imaginary fraud continued, another part of the plot was hatching. The ultimate aim of creating chaos just after the polls closed was explained in 2022 by the Washington Post:
Trump allies began discussing how to force the appointment of Trump electors, even in states where certified results showed voters selected Biden.
The goal was to create the conditions in which Congress could declare that the outcome of the election was in dispute.
By law, under such circumstances, a legitimately disputed election would be determined by a vote of state delegations in the U.S. House, a measure by which Republicans held a majority.
December 14th in 2020 was the day designated under law on which winning electors throughout the country were to meet in their states to fill out the legal forms saying who they voted for, but ...
In six swing states won by Biden, groups of self-appointed Republican "alternate electors" met on the same day to vote for Trump.
(By the way, if you’ve been wondering where the Trumpians so quickly found people to pretend to be electors? The so-called “fake” electors, by and large, came from the actual Trump slates in those states, and would’ve been “real” electors, had Trump won their states. But let’s continue:)
These alternate slates were not signed by the governors of the states they claim to represent, did not have the backing of any state legislature, and have no legal status.
The reasoning behind this? As one of the Nevada Trump fake electors explained back then:
“There’s still legal action pending in all these states, so what we’re doing here is complying with the requirement to vote on this day, in the state capital in the event court cases are resolved favorably...”
Also this, found in an email reviewed by the New York Times:
“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.
In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “ ‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes,” adding a smiley face emoji.
Still, what should the National Archives and the President of the Senate in Washington, D.C., have done with these arriving packets of obviously phony documents, which probably lacked the required paired-Certificate of Ascertainment, with its all-important governor’s signature and state seal?
Since they weren’t generated according to law, the President of the Senate is not required to accept delivery of it, which is exactly what Mike Pence ended up refusing to do on January 6th.
This comes from a CNN article on the plot itself:
In truth, no state actually had two slates of competing electors. The pro-Trump electors were merely claiming without any authority to be electors, as documented in the fake certificates sent to the National Archives.
How did they know this for sure? Because even though the fake electors were able to send in counterfeit Certificates of Vote, they were not able to send in a counterfeit Certificate of Ascertainment — the one the governor signs and sends out immediately after the election showing how many popular votes each slate got. (See next section.)
In short, according to another CNN article:
Trump allies tried to supplant President Joe Biden’s authentic electors with fake Republican electors in seven key states, who could’ve theoretically thrown the entire election to Trump.
Okay, but how was the “fake electors” scam supposed to work?
Before we start, shouldn’t we make sure we understand how the Electoral College is supposed to work? Just in case:
o When we vote for president and vice president, we don’t do so directly; we’re actually voting for a slate of people in our state, usually some high-up muckity-mucks from the political party of our candidate, almost all of whom most of us have never even heard of. Members of the winning party’s slate becomes the “electors”, while those from the losing slate(s) ordinarily just go back home, despondently.
HERE'S WHAT A 2020 CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT LOOKS LIKE: ... Notice that Wyoming took the option of not mentioning either the political party, nor the name of the political candidates that each slate represents, but it did list, as is required, the qualifying slates with the names of its prospective electors — in this case, three (one for each Wyoming electoral vote) — and the number of popular votes each slate received. (But what the heck, here they are anyway: The winning Wyoming slate were all Republicans for Trump/Pence; the second slate were Democrats for Biden/Harris; the third slate were for Libertarians for Jorgensen/Cohen; and the fourth were Independents for Pierce/Ballard.)(Certificate and info: Wikipedia)
o Immediately after the results of the state’s popular vote are determined, the governor fills out seven copies of a form called the “Certificate of Ascertainment” (see above), which lists the winning electors and number of state popular votes each received, plus a list of the non-winning elector slate “candidates” and their votes. Each form contains the official state seal, is signed by the governor, and includes one way of proving its authenticity. One copy is sent to the Archivist of the United States and the other six to the group of winning electors. After the Archives peruses its copy, it forwards it to the President of the Senate (aka, the “Vice President of the U.S.”).
DON’T BE FOOLED!! THESE ARE FAKES!! ... How to know? It’s these words: “WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified electors for President and Vice President of the United States from the State of Arizona...” None of that’s true! It would have been true had Trump won the state, of course, but he didn’t. The Republicans of Arizona sent this to the National Archives in DC, just in hopes that it would somehow be useful in overturning the results from Biden to Trump — but no such luck. Nobody was deceived. The Archives kept these copies, maybe for historical value, maybe just for giggles, or possibly to preserve evidence for trial. (National Archives)
o Back in 2020, the winning slate electors would meet, traditionally in the state capital, on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December (although, since a 2022 change in the law, it henceforth will be the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday). The group’s chairman then passes out the six Certificates of Vote (see fake version, above) which do name the slate’s candidate for president and vice president, followed by the names and signatures of those electors who voted for him/her.
o Each of the six “Certificates of Vote” is then paired with one “Certificate of Ascertainment” and sealed, with one pair sent to the President of the Senate, two pairs to the U.S. Archives, and the rest to various state officials.
How did they even dream up this plot?
Much of it seemed aimed at creating enough artificial chaos among Trump’s fellow Republicans across America, giving them cover to do what he was hoping they wanted to do anyway — actions that would “find” (wink-wink!) more Trump votes — probably by un-finding enough Biden votes, since that’s easier — or at least slow or even stop the process, or best of all, get Republican-dominated state legislatures to undo the certifications of Biden electors and replace their slates with Trump slates, something that became harder to pull off once the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that state legislatures don’t have the last say after all on which candidate their state backs.
But I think the plotters were, in fact, surprised to learn that Republicans in Georgia and Arizona just weren’t the pliable partisan-flunkies that the Trump people themselves were. (See the testimony of Arizona’s Republican House Speaker, Rusty Bowers: “... to which the former New York mayor said: ‘Aren't we all Republicans here? I would think we'd get a better reception’ ").
The wider picture of the Trump gang’s “January 6th Scenario” count of electors was first outlined within six points in a late-December, 2020 memo by Trump legal-team lawyer John Eastman, the points of which I paraphrase here, to save time and wordage. (Bolded words spotlight actions that didn’t conform to existing laws):
1. Eastman’s scheme would begin with “VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself)”, starting to “open and count the ballots”, in state alphabetical order.
2. Reaching Arizona, he announces that, because of “multiple slates”, he’ll “defer decision on that until finishing the other States.”
3. Reaching the end, he announces, “because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of ‘electors appointed’ — the language of the 12th Amendment — is 454”, down from the usual 538, cutting the majority from 270 down to 228. But, surprise! Trump now has 232, and Biden only 222! “Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.”
4. “Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim”, according to Eastman’s fairytale, “... that 270 is required”, which apparently contradicts some prior legal position taken by Harvard Law Professor (and, famously, liberal!) Laurence Tribe. Pence then says, Fine!, but since this means no candidate achieves 270, this sends the election into the House, where “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote ... .” “Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.”
5. “One last piece”, says Eastman, concerning one little arcane hurdle he hoped to introduce: “we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control.” [At that link, search for those words.] “That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one ... [and] should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.”
6. “The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court ... The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.”
And what was the so-called “Pence Card”?
Here it is, according to Wikipedia:
In late December 2020, Trump and some of his supporters, such as former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, began to promote the idea of the Pence Card, a legal theory by which then-Vice President Mike Pence had unilateral authority to reject electoral votes from states deemed to be fraudulent.
The concept was nonsense:
The theory stems from a misreading of U.S. law 3 U.S.C. § 12, which directs the vice president to request electoral vote certificates from any state that has not yet sent these votes to the National Archives by the fourth Wednesday in December.
Under the theory, Pence had unilateral authority to declare that state certificates from contested states had not in fact been received, and that new certificates (presumably supporting President Trump) should be issued.
Everybody (except Trump’s people, apparently) was aware that the Electoral Count Law (ECA), the law controlling counting of electoral votes, said the President of the Senate had only ministerial duties, which grants little more power than opening the ballots and handing them to someone else to count — although many had thought the ECA didn’t state this clearly enough, so the law was updated in 2022.
But the “Pence Card” gambit, which possibly might have resulted in a totally illegitimate Trump regime for the last four years, although probably failed for one good reason:
The eponymous Pence himself wouldn’t be bullied into buying into it.
So how’d their plan go during the real count on January 6th?
First, Arizona:
... there was an objection to Arizona's 11 electoral votes, brought forward by Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona's 4th congressional district and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and signed by 67 other senators and representatives.
Debates began over the objection in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, but were abruptly cut short after threats by pro-Trump demonstrators that escalated into a fullblown storming of the Capitol, forcing the building to be locked down and Congress to be evacuated.
(The dominos begin their tumble.)
After the Capitol was secured at 5:40 p.m. and Congress reconvened, the objection failed 6–93 in the Senate, and 121–303 in the House.
And so, on to Pennsylvania?
... there was an objection to Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes, brought forward by U.S. Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania's 10th congressional district and officially signed onto by U.S. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri.
The objection failed 7–92 in the Senate, and 138–282 in the House.
And it was over!
If those rioters and trespassers achieved nothing else good, they accidentally kicked the wind out of Eastman’s phony “objecting-to-state-slates” dog-and-pony show.
Was Trump personally involved in the fake electors scheme?
Yes, according to evidence collected by the House Select Committee that looked into January 6th (see page 109):
Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel testified before this Committee that President Trump and Eastman directly requested that the RNC organize the effort to have these fake (i.e., Trump) electors meet and cast their votes.
Did Trump himself really summon that mob to stop Congress from certifying Biden as president?
WHEN I MYSELF FIRST LEARNED IN LATE DECEMBER ... that Trump had sent out his “Wild!”invitation to come to DC on January 6th? Not wanting to miss his coup, I almost cancelled my upcoming doctor appointment for that day, but later, decided to go anyway. I watched much of it live on the flat-screen in their waiting room, while my wife was texting me from home, “OH MY GOD THEY’RE INSIDE STATUARY HALL!!!!!”)
(https://x.com/atrupar/status/1346902499178016773)
Here’s Bess Levin’s explanation of that in Vanity Fair:
For his part, Trump has a long history of merely implying the terrible things he’d like to see happen without directly calling for them, in the same way a mafia mob boss would.
For instance, when he called up the president of Ukraine in 2019, he didn’t say, “I need you to dig up dirt on my political rival, and if you don’t, I’m not going to send you any more aid” — but that was, quite obviously, the implication.
And on January 6, 2021, he didn’t tell attendees of the Stop the Steal rally, “Go break into the Capitol and stop them from certifying the results of the election, and while you're there, chant about hanging Mike Pence” — but he might as well have!
(I’ve wondered if Trump had been inspired by King Henry II’s mob-like query, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” from the movie “Becket”?)
So was it just a coincidence that January 6 — the day Trump summoned his supporters to be in DC, promising a “wild” time — just happened to be the very same day Congress, according to the laws of the land, was to officially tally the electoral votes?
If Trump wasn’t aware of that, he was one of the very few to not see it coming!
And what might Trump have meant by the word “wild” on the day the Election Count law chose for the official electors to be counted? Listen to Cassie Hutchinson’s testimony during the January 6 hearings:
... she testified that Trump knew that members of the crowd had weapons, but that he didn't care. He said that they were not there to hurt him, and they could march to the Capitol after the rally.
“I DON’T F’ING CARE THAT THEY HAVE WEAPONS. THEY’RE NOT HERE TO HURT ME. TAKE THE F’ING MAGS AWAY. LET MY PEOPLE IN.” ... Trump, as paraphrased by Cassidy Hutchinson in the J6 hearings. (But if not there to hurt him, who were Trump’s armed posse there to hurt?) (Photo: Final Report of House Jan. 6 Select Committee, pg. 69.)
But haven’t Trump’s lawyers argued there’s precedent for these “alternate slates” in Hawaii, back in 1960?
In fact, Trump lawyer Bruce Marks mentioned this in an email:
“I do not believe there was anything ‘fake’ or illegal about the alternate slates of delegates...” he said. “There was a history of alternate slates from Hawaii in 1960.”
Yeeaaah ... but no, not really.
The year 1960 was Hawaii’s first rodeo, having just become a state the year before, so it had no national election experience.
In fact, they were still in the middle of their recount on the last legal day to send in their vote certificates, so the governor certified what they had so far (showing Richard Nixon winning Hawaii) and put that in the mail.
But on that same day, the Democrats, who were confident the final recount would prove JFK had won, sent in their own certificate, just hoping for the best.
Sure enough, two weeks later, the final recount did show Kennedy had won! A local judge approved it (coincidentally, throwing out a GOP motion to void the whole election on the basis of “alleged voter fraud”), then the acting governor signed it, and this third certificate was then sent to DC.
In Congress, the VP (who happened to be Richard Nixon) was faced with a dilemma, but in light of the unique circumstances, he ruled in favor of Kennedy — although the numbers had no impact on the national outcome — but importantly?
Nixon added a caveat of his own: His decision should not be seen as a precedent for the future.
“But”, you might ask, “did Nixon even have the authority to add caveats?”
Probably not, but if he didn’t, it should also be noted that, according to the law both back then and now, he seems to have had no authority under law to make any rulings of any kind whatsoever! — which, of course, moots the whole question.
The point here is that, while these votes would not have changed the election either way, still, if they had, somebody would have contested them and would have won the argument.
In other words, Hawaii in 1960 does nothing for Trump’s case.
Yet 2021 was not the only time objections to slates ever raised during a count. In fact, haven’t Democrats also objected?
Sure! In fact,
It happened most recently in 2017, when several Democrats objected to Mr. Trump’s win in key states, based on Russian election interference.
But Mr. Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, had already conceded and no Democratic senator joined the effort, so the objections were quickly rejected.
So was January 6th a coup attempt, or wasn’t it?
Well, there certainly was some talk about a possible “coup” being in the works before January 6th, 2021. See this Washington Post article that was published on January 5th — the day before! — under the headline, “With brazen attack on election, Trump prompts critics to warn of a coup”:
Since his defeat in the November election, Trump’s critics have warned that his scorched-earth effort to invalidate the outcome amounts to a new level of danger: the first attempted coup d’etat in U.S. history to illegally maintain power.
Also, exactly one week before Inauguration Day, all our top military brass seemed to see at least some coup potential in all that when they issued this memo to their constituent forces, by way of warning:
As Service Members, we must embody the values and ideals of the Nation. We support and defend the Constitution. Any act to disrupt the Constitutional process is not only against our traditions, values and oath; it is against the law.
But just as Bunker Hill was not, by itself, the American Revolution, what happened on January 6th of 2021 was not, all by itself, the Trumpian coup attempt to replace the legitimately-elected president with himself.
Still, yes, January 6th was part of the coup plot.
The larger plan was ...
o all of Trump’s pretending to “predict” the election would be rigged,
o then pretending it actually was,
o but then pretending he won it anyway,
o actually persuading some Republican make-believe “electors” to also pretend he won,
o which was in order to persuade state legislatures to decertify Biden’s victory
o and appoint more Trump electors,
o then trying to “weaponize” our Justice Department to falsely claim they found fraud,
o inviting a group of armed thugs — possibly joined by some somewhat innocent bystanders — to break into the American Capitol to intimate Congress into not officially finalizing his loss,
o and trying to strong-arm the Vice President of the United States to either declare Trump the winner or at least stall the process long enough to let someone else do it ...
... all that was the actual coup d'état.
But more precisely, it should be categorized as a failed “self-coup” attempt.
“Self-coups” usually take place when a legally-elected leader tries to extend their term in office through illegal (which, in most cases, means unconstitutional) means. That’s what Trump, with help from his minions, attempted to do.
But don’t coups always require some participation of the military?
Some people insist that a real coup requires military involvement, but many definitions don’t.
For example, Wikipedia’s article says a coup d'état (my bold), “is typically an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership”, and in a quick search of several dictionaries, I found none that defines all coups d'état necessitating military participation.
But when you think about it, the essence of a coup is the theft of power and authority from the rightful rulers in ways that defy the rules and laws of the country.
This might involve, from one extreme, the assassination of the rulers, or the other, a somewhat peaceful (albeit unlawful) abrogation of the already-agreed-upon rules governing the ways that rulers are chosen, just like what Trump’s coup participants were aiming for.
While I generally disagree with “libertarianism”, I find myself agreeing with everything in, “Yes, It Was an Attempted Coup”, an article by libertarian Andy Craig from CATO Institute’s website two years ago, excerpted here:
After the 2020 U.S. presidential election was over, and at the very latest, after the Electoral College had voted in mid-December and all of Trump’s court appeals had been exhausted, there was never any legal way for Trump to remain in power.
It is this aspect of the events of Jan. 6 that makes referring to that day as a mere riot insufficient. “Riot” fails to convey the scope and gravity of the matter.
The United States did indeed suffer an attempted coup at the hands of the former president, but this coup attempt was not limited to what was done by the mob of Trump supporters at the Capitol. Rather, the entire effort to overturn the election was an attempted coup. ...
This broader understanding of the attempted coup even includes the hypothetical scenario in which Congress somehow sided with the objections made by Sens. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and other dead-end Trump supporters in Congress to counting electoral votes from disputed states. This gambit might have observed the form of a legislative procedure — a hollow imitation of lawfulness.
But it would have been entirely illegitimate and unconstitutional all the same, a violation of not only the statutory Electoral Count Act, but also, more importantly, the legitimate powers of Congress under the Constitution.
But Trump failed!! Shouldn’t that tell you he may have kind of “learned his lesson” since back then?
If what you mean is possibly in the same sense that al-Qaida “kind of learned its lesson” in 1993, after failing in its first attempt to bring down a World Trade Center tower ... then my answer would probably be, yes, very much kind of like al-Qaida, in the sense of learning how to not repeat your mistakes on your next attempt!
But there’s more to it than just that. Trump and his anti-democracy ratpack playing Trump’s seemingly innocuous “making-stuff-up” game has already done damage to our founders’ project, maybe in ways that most people haven’t noticed, and will stay with us no matter the results of 2024.
This false belief that all elections are crooked (they’re not!) naturally leads to a general acceptance that, Hey, if the other side cheats, then we should, too. (“Don’t be naïve! Everybody does it! Winning is all that matters! If we don’t have the guts to cheat, we don’t deserve to win!”)
In the United States, there are scientists who measure election cheating, and they tell us there is virtually negligible election fraud in this country anymore, but if someone convinces enough of us to think those science dudes are wrong, then soon, the liars will be right:
The United States’ Corruption Perception Index [CPI] score had been on the decline for several years. In 2015, the US was at 76. In 2016, 74. By 2020, the US was down to 67, where it remained in 2021.
Why? Simple, according to an analysis from Transparency International:
“The country’s lack of progress on the CPI [Corruption Perception Index] can be explained by the persistent attacks against free and fair elections, culminating in a violent assault on the US Capitol, and an increasingly opaque campaign finance system.”
Turns out that a former president – and undisputed leader of the Republican Party – actively undermining what was a free and fair election has consequences. Real and lasting ones.
That was in early 2022. The latest chart shows that the numbers slightly improved under Biden, although it seems perceptions last year might still have been under the influence of all that MAGA talk:
If somehow you’re able to convince enough “low-information” voters — those already cynically inclined to believe that all their country’s elections are rigged — that they are indeed right about that (after all, how else to explain why candidates I don’t like keep winning elections!), then we just might never get them back to trusting the truth, and THAT just might spell the end to America’s “founders’ project".
Finally? An intriguing historical question:
Why does all this Trumpy-type “anti-democracy” keep reappearing within world democracies?
One answer is offered by Shawn Rosenberg of UC Irvine, in a 2019 paper rather bluntly titled “Democracy Devouring Itself: The Rise of the Incompetent Citizen and the Appeal of Right Wing Populism”.
Here’s the paper’s abstract, in its entirety:
For 60 years after the end of World War II, democratic governance has flourished and expanded its reach.
Now it appears this process has stalled and is even reversing in many of the established democracies of Europe and North America. Momentum now appears to be with right wing populist alternatives to democratic governance. In attempting to make sense of these developments, I argue that they are not the result of fluctuating circumstances or a momentary retreat in the progress toward ever greater democratization.
Adopting a broadly political psychological perspective, I instead suggest they reflect a structural weakness inherent in democratic governance, one that makes democracies always susceptible to the siren call of right wing populism.
I will further argue that as practices in countries such as the United States become increasingly democratic, this structural weakness is more clearly exposed and consequential. In the process, the vulnerability of democratic governance to right wing populist alternatives becomes greater.
Hence the conclusion that democracy is likely to devour itself.
For more on this theory, follow this link to Plato’s thoughts (or were they Socrates’? I always confuse those two guys!) but with either one or both of them convinced that democracy, by its very nature, is destined to end in tyranny, in which the tyrant “is an absolute ruler who is unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped a legitimate ruler's sovereignty”. It’s not that they necessarily dislike democracy all that much, they just consider tyranny the worst.
But maybe, if we here in 2024 can keep our wits about us, we can beat the historical odds and find a way to make democracy work.
Which reminds me! (Almost forgot!) Our “democracy” can’t be in danger, since, technically, we’re not a democracy! We’re a “republic”!!
Okay, right. And what’s the difference between the two? (No, wait!! Don’t tell me!)
If you look up the definitions of democracy and republic?
o “democracy: : government in which the supreme power is held by the people and used by them directly or indirectly through representation. ... : belief in or practice of the idea that all people are socially equal.”
o “republic: : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” (Some dictionaries include, “...and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.”)
You’ll probably come to the same conclusion that most normal people do, that it’s mostly “a distinction without a difference” — in short, they’re functionally the same thing.
Although I personally find the dictionary’s “democracy” being more like what we have here in the U.S., and their “republic” sounding more like one of those republics of the old U.S.S.R. (“Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”), where, in elections, voters would usually walk in, take their ballot, walk directly to the ballot box and drop it in, just to signify their vote for the one candidate from the only party (Communist) running! (Yes, they could vote against the candidate, but that was a bit more complicated and embarrassing, so voters tended not to do that.)
Or maybe do a deeper dive into articles like this one by NPR’s Ron Elving, who notes:
Since the election of 2020, supporters of former President Donald Trump have become notably more willing to assert their belief that voting in America is suspect. That Trump won an election he lost. That "millions of ballots" were uncounted or miscounted. ...
And when critics call this an attack on democracy, some election deniers respond by saying the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic.
Those people will give you all sorts of arcane explanations — that we’re really a “constitutional” republic, as if, to most of us, the two should be mutually exclusive, or that democracies are only direct democracies, not representative — but the bottom line is, functionally speaking, we are a democracy and a republic and, in fact, maybe a democratic republic.
BUT REMEMBER:
WHAT WE’RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE IS TRUMP VIOLATING SOME LAW!!
THIS, FOR INSTANCE, IS WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU BACK IN THE 1600s ... when someone decided you had attempted a coup d’etat (in the specific case depicted, by assassinating France’s King Henry IV.) And, just for example, had Donald Trump tried his coup back then? It might be fun for some of you to picture the spread-eagled guy in the center being him! But no, okay, you’re probably right! That was then and this is now. Times do change, after all, and I guess there are those among us — Mr. Trump included, I’d surmise — who might see this change as being one for the better. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/drawing-and-quartering)
Not surprisingly, there is at least one federal law against “advocating overthrow of government” — 18 U.S. Code § 2385, which starts with ...
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
... and it goes on like that, listing additional acts that qualify you.
But from what I read so far, I would think Trump could be charged with this — including, of course, the “force or violence”.
So why hasn’t he been?
Not an expert, but I’ve heard it’s harder to convict this than it seems, although not trying seems to leaves us with no way to punish people for trying to do what Donald Trump tried, and there’s reason to suspect that Trump — who’s brain lives in a perversely exciting world of people who would rather be pushed around by some putative strongman than live peacefully among fellow citizens of all backgrounds who believe they are perfectly able to rule themselves, thank you very much — will keep trying to drag you and me into his dark realm, until he succeeds.
Yet, still, I’d always imagined this law’s punishment would be more hard-core, such as drawing-and-quartering (see illustration, above) or whatever it was they did to the Rosenbergs, instead of only this:
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
Also not surprisingly, when you think about it, that this law doesn’t penalize you if your attempt succeeds? Although, fortunately for Trump — at least thus far — nor does it even if you try, but fail!
This doesn’t make sense, since, for example, when you attempt to rob a bank, but fail, they still send you to prison, instead of just sending you back home, perhaps to try again after the dust clears.
But what’s disturbing is that, if Trump wins this election, any idea of ever punishing him for his coup attempt goes right into history’s circular file of whimsical could-have-beens.
And also annoying is, all the most likely ways of ridding the land of him — impeachment? 25th-Amendment? heavenly-sent-lightning-bolt-to-the-head-on-golf-course? — all leave us with a President Vance! That doesn’t seem fair, somehow!
And so, in the words of Paul Simon, we may indeed be in “our age’s most uncertain hours.” (For the song? Click that!)
Nevertheless, we’ll just let the legal eagles and the Good Lord handle all that. All we’re really talking about here is who to not vote for.
You may like that Trump’s a bully, for some reason having gotten it into your head that who we really need leading our country is someone who’s not all that bright, per se, understands very little of economics or history or international affairs or the military, but better would be someone who exudes a kind of a nasty insult-comic charisma, who can intimidate both friend and foe alike in any situation simply by doing what he calls “the weave!” — which, by the way, is something only men can get away with — no women! — so don’t even try!
But wait!! Al Capone was a lot like Trump! He was apparently a very tough “man’s man” in his day.
Just to show you the kind of guy he was?
First, they let him out of prison early for treatment of syphilitic paresis,
but later, a psychiatrist checked him out and concluded he had the mentality of a 12-year-old child;
and then he suffered a stroke, regained consciousness and
contracted bronchopneumonia;
then it was cardiac arrest, but, surrounded by his loving family,
that was followed by apoplexy,
and then his heart failed, and then?
Poof! He was dead!
What a life! And such a tragic loss to the nation!! (I heard that scene in The Untouchables movie, where he murders some guy with a baseball bat, might’ve been a true story?)
Also yet, what a great president he would have made, no? But, hey, in the words of John Wilkes Booth?
BUT HERE’S THE THING:
We, in this modern age, have been taught to respect creative individuals who know how to “think outside the box” and “reinvent the wheel”, even when it puts everybody behind the eight-ball, which happens often enough. For some strange reason, we tend to think highly of those who already think too highly of themselves. Maybe we get tired of normalcy.
But perhaps now, in this era in which our age-old regard for self-governance seems to be losing its luster, this might be a good time to go back and rediscover the thinking of the original thinkers — who, way back in the 1780s, invented that original wheel and crafted that original box within which, I would guess, they might have preferred their descendants consider confining their thinking.
I mean, for Pete’s sake, those guys back then already put in most of the hard thinking needed to manage this “democratic republic” smoothly and safely!
Although, yes, I imagine they may have noticed the fragile and delicate nature of their creation, how easy it might later be for their posterity to forget to take the necessary care for its survival.
But I’m sure they also understood that solving history’s puzzle of how people in a nation can coexist was unlikely to last forever — and its sudden disappearance wouldn’t shock them — but they were helpless, and could only leave it up to you and me to keep that trust alive.
Now the only reasons (some not actually good ones) that I can think of to understand why you, a loyal American, would vote to put Donald Trump back in power are:
In the choice between (a) some world-famously-incompetent Republican who has even tried to overthrow America’s democracy, vs. (b) any Democrat whatsoever? You prefer (a)?
Although not a racist nor a sexist, you just don’t think our president should be (a) a person of color; (b) a person of female; (c) both of the above, not excluding suspicions of someone having actually been born in some place like India.
You think (a) Trump, having been a frightfully-successful businessman who is, you heard somewhere, the richest trillionaire in the world, knows more about everything than any Marxist-Communist-Socialist-leaning Democrat; vs. (b) while you know Trump’s probably not a “natural blond”, you do feel sorry for him having to apply all that orange-colored whatever on himself every morning — unless it turns out that stuff is actually GROWING on his FACE!?! Eee-Yew!! But even then, it was all Biden’s fault.
You (a) don’t believe Trump was launching a coup; or else (b) you do believe he was, but think other issues are more important than preserving America, issues such as immigrationalism, anti-abortionalism, wokenism, economyism, and eating-dogs-and-cats-ism — (just thinking that I’m overlooking something) — but also? (c) I forget the rest.
Being a proud conservative, you’re a staunch believer in competition over cooperation — which, to conservatives, means that nothing matters more than winning at all costs — even if it necessitates a LITTLE lying and cheating! (‘cause, “if you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying hard enough!”) — and also saying stuff just to own the libs!! But if Democraps insist on believing in all that “thoughtful deliberation” garbage and “taking your country seriously”, then it’s no wonder they’re such losers!!
No, this was not a pop-survey! This was only designed to help you make up your mind — so please, do not enter your answers in the comment section (wherever the hell that is!) I feel a milennium-sized headache coming on and I really don’t need anyone adding to it.