What happens if Trump and Chief Justice Roberts do this to steal the election?

Can you please quote me where I proposed a CT? Thanks!

Trump et al have made their goals clear. There is no conspiracy there. It is only a decision as to whether you let them do what they have said they want to do, or not.

A conspiracy theory would be to say that the Obama administration is making FEMA camps to lock up dissidents.

It is an observation that Trump has called many who do nothing more than disagree with him traitors and has called for their incarceration.

He’s SAID any number of fatuous and stupid things. But so far, it’s been far more mouth-noises than formal acts. We must maintain eternal vigilance…but I don’t believe the courts are so badly corrupted that they would accept the annihilation of our democracy.

Kavanaugh, maybe… Alito and Thomas, sure. But the overall system isn’t that badly broken.

Yet. Let’s keep it that way.

The system isn’t broken but it is fractured and the current Executive is not motivated to repair the cracks. The OP posits a Trump/Roberts collusion to keep Trump in power. I think that is unlikely. However, if RGB’s health fails and Thomas retires, the earth shifts beneath our feet. Trump could put a pair of subservient toadies on the court. Perhaps Gauleiter DeSantis for one.

Then the challenge for Trump will be to precipitate an issue that deals with the election process. The kind of legal onanism that originalists love to fondle. All he has to do is stop the election and move our governing process further into chaos.

Respectfully, cite? If the President does not have the Supreme Court in his pocket, he would not control the legal system. He has no authority whatsoever - even under martial law - to prevent people from filing lawsuits in federal court; besides, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when a state is party to a suit. I find it highly improbable that the Court - even assuming Chief Justice Roberts harbored corrupt intent - would delay consideration of an emergency motion for preliminary injunction past December.

~Max

The United States has not formally authorized any war since 1942, and we “won” that war. If you are including other military conflicts, aside from Granada the invasion of Panama comes to mind. As to Grenada, “Was the United States almost defeated by Grenada’s local police force?

~Max

It’s not Nazi Germany, but it’s in no way a healthy democracy. What Trump is doing is testing to see what he can get away with, and he’s going to test the system in ways that it has potentially never been tested before.

The president has more power than you think. Look at what’s happening now. He’s “protecting” some “federal” buildings, but in doing so he’s exercising police power that’s tucked away into legislation that we’ve accepted over a period of time. What can the mayor of Portland or Chicago do to stop the American ‘federales’ from “protecting” their turf? Not a damn thing, that’s what.

What do you think would happen if, say, violence becomes an “insurrection” in the weeks and days leading up to the election? Do you really want to find out?

That’s the point. Trump does outrageous things that are outside of the norm. He has organized his own military force. SCOTUS doesn’t have one. As long as our political structure responds to him, he can '‘do’ anything he wants.

Since this thread is speculative, I have no cites - however, in a few months, I may have,

At that point you are looking at a full-on military coup d’état. You are assuming one, to be more accurate. The only protections we have, and the only protections we have ever had since 1789, is the military’s commitment to our Constitution and the potential of a civilian resistance.

~Max

Agreed, and what should trigger the military to step in would be Presidential interference with the election process.

Coupled with the legislative branch failing to do their duty.

Just as an example, suppose he were to send his storm troopers, I mean Homeland Security agents, to Sacramento and Albany to prevent their electors from meeting and voting by Dec. 14, They have already shown that they will follow any orders whether legal or not. Trump won’t think of this, but Barr certainly could.

I know people keep saying this, but the troops were all following legal orders to produce federal property. There may be some technicalities about whether a governor’s approval was needed, but as far as the troops themselves were concerned, everything they did was legit and no court has yet said otherwise.

Shutting down Electoral College voting is light years away from anything that’s happened so far. That’s a coup. Trump will have no backing for an actual coup. He’s already offended the Joint Chief and the Sec Def with his idiotic photo op stunt. Can anyone believe that ordering The United States Border Patrol - the troops in Portland - to attack the Electoral College voters in state capitols on state property will fly anywhere outside of fan fiction?

Besides, stealing the election is like so last week. Trump’s already forgotten he said it. We should do the same.

Just following orders…

Who is suggesting this? Seriously, who?

Oh, he hasn’t forgotten it, but he is counting on you doing so.

So Federal law enforcement protecting federal property and the military discarding the Constitution they have been sworn to defend for 250 years both fall equally under the “just following orders” category? Are you willing to put any common sense into this argument?

No. They don’t. Funny that you should ask, as that has nothing to do with anything that I have said. Were you trying to refute a point that I made, or were you just waxing philosophical?

Sure, are you willing to put in any effort, or just make irrelevant and nonsequitur attacks?

Hari Seldon, the poster I literally quoted.

The Homeland Security “storm troopers” in Portland were mostly from the Border Patrol. And they had the excuse of vandalism and other damage to federal courthouse property, so they had legal cover. That, as I said, is the profound difference between Portland and an imaginary attack on Sacramento and Albany.

Saying he’s going to do something and then not doing it is Trump’s trademark move. Works every time like telling a dog you see a squirrel. Much rushing around and barking and futility results but never anything constructive.

Odd, I missed that, apologies. When it popped up, yours was the first unread post in this thread.

Though, upon reading, it is still not a conspiracy theory, just a thought on what could happen. I will agree with you that that is a very unlikely way of things turning out. I still wouldn’t be nearly as hostile in my method of pointing it out though. He never used the words “attack”, or “state property”, he just indicated a concern that the Trump admin would try something to disrupt the election, and gave interfering with the electors as a possibility.

Exactly, they had “legal cover.” That’s what I am talking about, when I say “following orders.” You even acknowledge that the “legal cover” is superficial at best. And the jury is still out on whether many of their actions were justified under their excuse of “legal cover.”

If Barr can make “legal cover” for something then that thing will be done, even if it is rather questionable. That we may be able to go back later and have the courts say that their actions were not legal does us little good at the time.

It’s exactly the sort of thing that works really well to get people to stop paying attention to what he is doing, to stop taking the threat seriously.

If you are saying that, if given the opportunity, Trump would turn down dictator for life, then I think that you are incredibly naive. If you are saying anything else, then it’s not remotely relevant.

We are heading to a constitutional crisis, which, by its very definition, means that words on a 250 year old parchment are no longer going to protect us, it will the actions of people still living that shape our future.

So tear gassing peaceful protesters, kidnapping them and interrogating them for hours, etc. is covered by some graffiti on federal buildings? Not in the US I grew up in.

It is not Trump who would come up with this. I would guess he has no idea how the electoral college works. But someone like Barr certainly knows and is capable of coming up with the idea of disrupting it. It need last only a few days and what could anyone do about it? Go to court? Who will enforce the court’s decision? Barr’s DOJ? Think again.

So your “just following orders” comment meant nothing? It seems pretty clear to me that you were linking federal law enforcement to a potential military sponsored coup d’etat no? Or are you backing away from that?