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

Great Debates
41

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?

42

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,

43

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

44

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

45

Coupled with the legislative branch failing to do their duty.

46

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.

47

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.

48

Just following orders…

Who is suggesting this? Seriously, who?

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

49

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?

50

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?

51

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.

52

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.

53

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.

54

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?

55

No, it meant that they were just following orders, under “legal cover.”

That’s not clear to me. That seems like some pretty motivated reasoning requiring dental tools to shove that line in my mouth.

I am backing away from nothing. I am just not agreeing with your extremely poor interpretation of my words.

56

Oh, here’s a court saying otherwise: Judge temporarily bars federal officers from using force, threats, dispersal orders against journalists, legal observers - oregonlive.com

57

Absolutely not. The military leaders are not Trump followers and have made that perfectly clear. If anything I would expect the military to resist any such shenanigans. It is these paramilitary goons who have no loyalty to anybody but the executive that worry me. If it is the Border Patrol, they’re the ones who have ignored court orders and locked up little kids and lost contact with the parents.

58

There is no possible way to interpret sending in storm troopers to prevent electors from meeting as anything other than an attack on state property. In the same way, “following orders” has exactly one reference today, as that’s as the excuse the Nazis gave. Your excuses don’t fly.

The US we both grew up in includes the 1960s, when a lot worse was done by the FBI and the CIA. (Local police were an order of magnitude worse, north and south.) I’ve never defended any of today’s activities; I’m just making the point that there’s a gulf between a veneer of legality against protesters and an outright coup. Coups need the Army. The DoJ isn’t going to bring one off.

Nope. That ruling is strictly against journalists and legal observers, NOT protestors or vandals. That’s always been where the legal line has been drawn.

Yeah, I get it. The Trump administration is a large bag of shit dumped on American heads. Trump is an idiot clown, but he’s surrounded by people who know what lines can be crossed and which can’t. From the evidence provided by people who’ve left, much time is spent protecting the difference. The majority aren’t going to support a coup and the rest don’t have the numbers or power to thwart them. The rest of the party are desperately looking for ways to separate themselves from his bloated shadow; they’re not going to get in the middle of a impossible coup. You should be celebrating this reality, not calling it naive. And you certainly shouldn’t get in the way of the GOP’s self-destruction.

59

I could think of a dozen ways to interfere with the electors that doesn’t involve state property, much less attacking it. I mean, the electors could be arrested in their homes, or on their way to the capital. In any case, the poster floated it as an idea, not to be specific, but as a general case of Trump admin interfering.

But, it is also exactly the excuse that you gave them. That’s why I said it. Not because Nazis used it, but because you thought that that excuse would fly. It’s not my fault that the Nazis used as an excuse the same one that you gave.

ETA: I see that you actually said that they were “following legal orders”. Does this in some way differentiate the excuse?

60

Yeah, the difference between following legal orders and following illegal orders is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.