[ModernMech]

What legal theory exactly would lead to the outcome you describe. After the Congress certifies the vote, that’s it. Constitutionally, the process is done. The Congress can’t reverse it because they are the ones who would have made it happen. How would congress undo that? By taking it to court? Well that’s a separation of powers issue. Even if they were to overturn the result, well now SCOTUS is accused of interfering with the election as they did in 2000. I mean… no matter how you slice it, such an event would destroy democracy. How do you have another free and fair election after that?

At the point where 50% of the Congress is voting against democracy, and the people are assaulting the Capitol, it strikes me as naive to expect institutions like scotus to save us at long last.

If you value American democracy, 2024 is the last stand. Sorry you feel this perspective is breathless, but also you don’t seem to have a grasp of the severity of what happened. Which is why I’m imploring you to watch.

[dpbriggs]

If you're telling me there's no recourse through congress or the supreme court around a delayed vote that's a serious flaw in the system. If course I'm not claiming the system is without flaws.

Even then, what occurs four years later? Or even a few months later? He wouldn't have enough leverage to translate that into continued (real) power.

I'll guess we'll see what happens in a few years.

[ModernMech]

It’s not just a delayed vote, it’s there is no recourse to a certified election. Once a president elect is certified, they are as good as inaugurated. That’s why 1/6 was so important.

The plan was to use the delay to kick the process into something favorable for Republicans, and to use fraudulent slates of electors to do so.

A certified presidential election has no review for good reason. The certification is in fact the election review process. All grievances are supposed to be settled by the Congress at that time. SCOTUS has no say over this process because if they did, that would take power away from the Congress, which would be unconstitutional.

As to what happens after that? See Hungary. See Russia. See any other country that has transitioned from democracy to autocracy. Elections will be held, it the results will be known ahead of time.

> I'll guess we'll see what happens in a few years.

No, the time to shape what happens in 2024 is now. This is why I am imploring you to pay close attention to the hearings. Action in 2024 will be too late.

[farmerstan]

The idea that Trump could have successfully usurped power is truly deranged. He couldn’t. Period.

January 6th was terrible but it was in no way anywhere close to being a real threat to democracy. To insist that it was is delusional.

[krapp]

Ah yes, the airtight "it could never happen here," argument.

[farmerstan]

It would take more than invading a building to take over the US. Give me a break. So much delusional thinking. You probably thought all that be about Trump and Russia was true as well even though it was proven to be all fake.

[ModernMech]

The number one question you need to ask yourself right now is do you value democracy? If the answer is yes, as a citizen of these United States you are obligated to watch the 1/6 hearings, and to learn everything the committee has learned.

If you want, I’ll be your pen pal during the 1/6 hearings. I’d like to hear your thoughts about the evidence presented, and if that changes your feelings about 1/6. Let me know I’ll give you my email.

I implore you to watch the hearings because you are using very strong language like “delusional” and "deranged", yet you don’t seem to be up to date on the facts relating to 1/6; you are under the impression that the totality of the coup attempt was seizing the Capitol building. That is not true. The 1/6 hearings will tell you exactly how they would have succeeded, and it’s far more insidious than an insurrection.

You are right it would take far more than occupying a building. It would take a conspiracy between state legislatures, state secretaries of state, paramilitary groups, the DOJ, the DOD, and it would have to reach as high as the White House and POTUS. Unfortunately for the USA, that's just what happened here.

(Just to head off an anticipated response, yes I understand the connotation of a conspiracy theory, but conspiracies happen and when they do they are hard to keep quiet if they are far ranging, as I'm alleging this conspiracy was. The coup plot has not been kept quiet, which is how I'm able to assert these points before the 1/6 committee has held their hearings. Everything I said has been reported already. I mean, just watch recently indicted Peter Navarro explain the whole plot live on national TV. They even had a codename for their plot: "The Green Bay Sweep").

But don’t take my word for it, the 1/6 committee will prove all of this in the coming weeks. All I’m saying is watch the hearings today and through June. You owe it to your country if you value democracy.

[Bud]

Uh, except it wasn't proven to be fake. The Mueller Report substantiated all of it.

Please cite any substantive sources about it being "proven to be fake". That's a Fox News line, not an argument. None of it was proven fake. At all.

[ModernMech]

The Mueller Report substantiated most of it, the Senate Intel Committee Report Vol 5 substantiated collusion when it found that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had been transferring campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer.