All the ways Trump tried to overturn the election — and how it could happen again
Here is a guide to the increasingly radical strategies attempted by Trump and his allies to reverse Joe Biden’s victory, beginning right after the election and persisting after the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol
President Donald Trump made clear just hours after polls closed on Nov. 3 that he had no intention of conceding the 2020 election to Joe Biden. Instead, he and his allies engaged in overlapping strategies to try to overturn the results of the election, beginning in November and lasting and persisting even after his supporters violently breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The strategies became increasingly radical as efforts to use the courts or state recount procedures to change the election outcome failed. Since Trump left office, there have not been significant legal changes that would prevent a future president from trying similar tactics in the future, and much of the Republican Party has embraced Trump’s falsehoods about what happened in 2020.
Key players
Post-election litigation
Key players
Donald Trump
Rudolph W. Giuliani
Sidney Powell
L. Lin Wood
After the election, President Donald Trump’s campaign, the Republican Party and key Trump allies like Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood filed dozens of lawsuits challenging the election results in key swing states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The strategy was initially embraced by Republican leaders who did not wish to challenge Trump’s refusal to concede and instead argued that the courts were a legitimate avenue to resolve election disputes. But judges at every level, including those appointed to the bench by Trump, rejected the post-election challenges, sometimes at a rate of more than one a day.
In some cases, judges argued the cases would not affect enough ballots to change the outcome of the election or were filed too late and should have been lodged before the election.
In others, judges sternly rejected allegations of fraud or problems with the vote and slammed Trump and his allies for trying to disenfranchise voters, including a case argued personally in court by Trump attorney and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. On Dec. 11, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by Texas and supported by Trump and 100 House Republicans that argued Joe Biden’s wins in four other states should be tossed out. While cases continued to be filed and heard through the month, it was clear Trump would not win in court.
How this could happen again
Historically, both political parties have turned to the courts to settle disputes about elections. Given the nation’s divisions, the number of lawsuits filed after closely contested elections is likely to grow.
Pressure to prevent certification
Key players
Donald Trump
Republican Party leaders
After voters cast ballots, presidential election results must be formally affirmed and certified, generally first at the local level and then by state governments. While the process has been previously viewed as routine, in most states it is conducted by partisan officials — meaning in many swing states, elected Republicans hold formal roles in the process. As it became clear that Trump would be unable to get judges to intercede, he and his allies began pressuring local Republicans to refuse to affirm Biden’s win.
The full scope of Trump’s efforts to lean on local Republicans is still not fully known, but members of the canvassing board in Wayne County, Mich., said they received phone calls from Trump urging them not to certify Biden’s win in Detroit. So, too, did members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, responsible for certifying Biden’s win in Arizona’s largest county. Trump waged public and private campaigns to persuade Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, all Republicans, to reject or undo statewide certification. After key states certified Biden’s win and the electoral college met, it was clear Trump would not win by preventing the election’s certification in swing states.
How this could happen again
There have been no significant changes since 2020 to how states certify official election results to reduce the role of partisan players. If anything, Republicans in some states are considering expanding the role of partisan players in the process, including putting state legislatures in charge, and some state parties have replaced election officials with people considered more stalwart Trump loyalists.
Efforts to create alternate slates of electors
Key players
Donald Trump
Rudolph W. Giuliani
Jenna Ellis
John Eastman
U.S. presidents are officially selected through a vote of the electoral college, with electors determined by the certified vote of the people in each state. Text messages exchanged by Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and made public by the House Jan. 6 committee show that not long after polls closed, 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.
When the electoral college met on Dec. 14, Giuliani and others organized Trump supporters to gather and declared themselves properly appointed electors, even in states where Biden was the certified winner. Trump and his allies pressured Republican state legislators in key swing states such as Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan to formally vote to recognize these electors in place of Biden’s. As late as Jan. 2, Trump convened a conference call for 300 state legislators in which he, Giuliani and lawyer John Eastman encouraged them to convene special sessions and appoint new electors. Despite the pressure and an alliance with numerous GOP legislators, no legislative body voted to endorse alternate electors. The alternate electors had no legal standing, but some Trump supporters, notably Eastman and attorney Jenna Ellis, argued that Vice President Mike Pence could simply choose to recognize these alternate electors instead of the official ones on Jan. 6. Only when state legislatures declined to vote on electors and Pence refused to recognize unofficial Trump electors was it clear Trump would not win by relying on alternate electors.
How this could happen again
Some state attorneys general have said they believe it could have been criminal for presidential electors to submit certificates to government offices when their candidate did not win the certified popular vote. The Justice Department has said it is reviewing the issue. Congress has floated changes to the 1887 law governing the counting of electoral college votes. But no charges have been filed, and no new laws have been adopted to clarify the rules.
The chase for possible fraud or machine manipulation
Key players
Donald Trump
Rudolph W. Giuliani
Mark Meadows
Russell J. Ramsland Jr.
Phil Waldron
As it became clear that Biden had won more votes, Trump and his supporters began a race to collect tales of possible fraud to explain away Trump’s loss. The chase included members of Trump’s inner circle and a collection of fringe outsiders. They cited easily debunked anecdotes and unscientific statistical analysis. Some theories were based on a misunderstanding of election procedures and others on conflating possible vulnerabilities in the system with actual findings of problems. Some were fake. In Michigan, Trump’s campaign submitted 238 pages of sworn affidavits from poll watchers who complained about vote counting procedures — but they provided no direct evidence of fraud and were quickly dismissed by a judge. In Pennsylvania, the campaign cited the account of a postal worker who complained he overheard a supervisor directing that late ballots be backdated — but upon further questioning, the man quickly recanted. In Georgia, Trump and Giuliani said a surveillance video depicted election workers stuffing ballots from suitcases hidden under a table. Law enforcement officials repeatedly concluded the video showed standard ballot counting and nothing improper. The workers have now sued Giuliani, alleging defamation.
One particular area of focus from Trump allies such as lawyer Sidney Powell and MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell were voting machines manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems, which they claimed had been hacked by domestic or foreign parties to flip votes from Trump to Biden on a mass scale. Purported research about the theory was provided to Powell and Giuliani and others by a Texas company called Allied Security Operations Group, led by Russell J. Ramsland Jr. and working with retired Army Col. Phil Waldron. They were incorporated into lawsuits and cited repeatedly by Trump and his allies, particularly after a judge gave ASOG access to Dominion machines in one Michigan county, Antrim. Ramsland produced a report claiming widespread fraud that was amplified by Trump even as it was debunked by experts.
Another outlandish theory held that an Italian defense contractor worked with U.S. intelligence to rig the election. Despite all the theories authorities repeatedly concluded that the election had been free and fair and not marred by widespread fraud — including Trump’s attorney general and Department of Homeland Security. When Trump could find no court or other official body to endorse wild tales of fraud, it was clear Trump would not win as a result of the false claims.
How this could happen again
Dominion Voting Systems has filed billion-dollar defamation lawsuits against several key Trump allies, and major social media companies have banned Trump and his allies over spreading false claims about the election, both intended to be disincentives for lodging baseless allegations. But the theories remain popular among many Trump supporters.
Attempt to weaponize the Justice Department
Key players
Donald Trump
Rudolph W. Giuliani
Jeffrey Clark
Scott Perry
Mark Meadows
Without a judge to legitimize his claims of fraud, Trump tried to pressure his Justice Department to do it instead, by declaring a formal investigation that would make the allegations appear more substantive. Attorney General William P. Barr would not do so, declaring on Dec. 1 that he had not seen signs of fraud that could affect the election’s outcome. Shortly after, Barr announced he would resign Dec. 23. Trump began to pressure Barr’s successor, Jeffrey Rosen, to announce an investigation even before he took office. “Just say the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me” and GOP lawmakers, Trump told a top Justice Department official on Dec. 27, according to notes from the official. Trump allies, including Giuliani and Meadows, forwarded to Rosen and others outlandish claims of fraud and pressed the Justice Department to investigate. They also pushed Rosen to file an appeal to the Supreme Court that would put the official force of the U.S. government behind an effort to get the justices to invalidate Biden’s wins in six states.
When it became clear Rosen would not go along, either, Trump told Jeffrey Clark — who was a mid-level Justice Department official introduced to Trump by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and had indicated a willingness to assist — that he would elevate him to acting attorney general. During a showdown meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 3, Rosen and other top Justice Department leaders, as well as members of the White House counsel’s office, told Trump they would resign en masse if he installed Clark in Rosen’s place. Trump backed off. When Justice Department leaders threatened to resign rather than comply with Trump’s orders, it was clear that Trump could not use his law enforcement agencies to win the election.
How this could happen again
There have been some discussions about ways to strengthen Justice Department rules governing contacts with the president and other White House officials, but none have been adopted.
Pressure on the vice president
Key players
Donald Trump
Rudolph W. Giuliani
John Eastman
Mark Meadows
Stephen K. Bannon
Jenna Ellis
Phil Waldron
After Biden’s win was formalized by the electoral college on Dec. 14, key Trump allies turned their attention to Jan. 6, when the Constitution required that the electoral college votes be read aloud during a joint session of Congress by the president of the Senate — that is, the vice president of the United States. They advanced a legal theory that held that Pence could use the role to reject votes for Biden, recognizing informal slates for Trump instead. Alternatively, they argued he could declare the election in dispute, triggering a process by which it would be decided by Congress or, they thought, result in a delay that could put pressure on GOP-led state legislatures to vote to replace Biden electors. Pence’s legal advisers told him these theories, never tested in court, were hogwash. But Trump pressured his vice president privately and publicly to go along, starting before Christmas and at times assisted by Meadows. Trump’s allies penned a frenzied legal memos and PowerPoint presentations advocating the idea.
Lawmakers such as Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) promised they would use the joint session to challenge the results, by law triggering hours of debate that some believed would put more pressure on Pence to act. From a set of rooms at Washington’s Willard Hotel, Trump’s inner circle — including Giuliani, Eastman, former adviser Stephen K. Bannon and others — plotted for days about how to ramp up the pressure on Pence. But Pence held firm, issuing a statement as Congress convened at 1 p.m. on Jan. 6 in which he said it was his view that his constitutional oath constrained him from acting unilaterally to choose electors. When Pence issued the statement, it was clear that Trump could not win by relying on his vice president to hand him the election.
How this could happen again
There have been bipartisan discussions in Congress about reforming the Electoral Count Act, adopted in 1887, to make clear that the vice president’s role in counting the votes of the electoral college is purely ceremonial. So far, the law remains unchanged.
The effort to harness public pressure — ending in violence
Key players
Donald Trump
Rudolph W. Giuliani
Stephen K. Bannon
Mike Lindell
Trump derived strength from the fervor of his political base, and starting even before the vote, he worked steadily and consistently to convince his supporters that any election he did not win was rigged and stolen. He upped those efforts after it became clear that Biden won, apparently hoping that public pressure could help sway election officials, judges, governors and state and federal lawmakers to engineer a process that would overturn the election.
Starting from the early hours of the day after the election, Trump publicly declared the election was stolen and in the following days began to declare himself the victor in states he had lost. His supporters responded, massing outside vote-counting facilities in Detroit and Phoenix. Trump continued to hold political rallies across the country that served to rile up his base, including extremists and white nationalists who began attempting to organize violence online to help Trump. He and his supporters popularized the hashtag #StopTheSteal and began holding “Stop the Steal” rallies throughout the country, including a bus tour funded in part by Lindell and Women for America First, the group that sponsored a rally on Jan. 6. On Nov. 14 and again on Dec. 12, Trump supporters marched in Washington to protest the supposedly stolen election, both times resulting in street scuffles with police and counterprotesters after dark. Nevertheless, on Dec. 19, Trump promoted a rally in Washington to coincide with the counting of the electoral college votes on Jan. 6, tweeting, “Be there, will be wild!” On the morning of Jan. 6, language used in speeches at the rally held on the White House Ellipse appeared designed to whip up the crowd, with Giuliani calling for “trial by combat” and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) declaring it was time to “start taking down names and kicking ass.” Trump called on protesters to march on the U.S. Capitol — falsely promising he would walk alongside them. When violence erupted, Trump was silent for 187 minutes. Only in the evening hours, when law enforcement had forcibly ousted protesters from the Capitol and Pence gaveled Congress back into session at 8:06 p.m., was it clear that the public pressure that ended in violence would not result in Trump keeping the presidency.
How this could happen again
Hundreds of people have been charged in the Capitol siege. But some Republicans have defended the Jan. 6 defendants as political prisoners and Trump and his allies have sought to recast the actions of that day as largely peaceful.
Attempts to deploy the national security establishment
Key players
Sidney Powell
Mike Lindell
The most radical strategy proposed by Trump’s allies during the weeks after the election was a proposal to use the military to seize ballots or voting machines in an effort to prove fraud and then conduct a do-over of the election. The proposal was included in several planning documents that reached Trump or members of his inner circle. For instance, Trump was briefed on a version of the idea by Powell, Flynn and businessman Patrick Byrne in an Oval Office meeting on Dec. 18. Drafts of never-signed executive orders that would have implemented the strategy have been found in White House records and turned over to the congressional committee investigation the Jan. 6 attacks. A version was also outlined in a PowerPoint presentation that was emailed to Meadows on Jan. 5. Even after the violence of Jan. 6, Lindell was photographed on Jan. 15 after a meeting with Trump in the White House carrying papers that referenced martial law. Another memo circulated among Trump allies advocated using National Security Agency communications data to try to prove foreign interference in the election. Trump apparently did not embrace the extreme proposal of a military coup. But it is still not fully known how seriously he might have considered it. And fears that Trump could attempt to use military force to help him retain office appears to have driven the Pentagon to delay deploying troops to defend the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Only when Trump left office without attempting to deploy the military on his behalf did it become clear this strategy would not be used to try to help him retain the presidency.
How this could happen again
In December 2021, three retired senior military leaders wrote a column for The Washington Post advocating the military do more now to prevent service members from signing on to a future coup. They warned that it could happen again — and next time such an effort could succeed.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment