Up In Flames
The story of Trump's attempt to set fire to American democracy. By Aaron Graham
Preparing the Fire Pit
A crucial election racing towards him, Donald J. Trump knew he would taste defeat on a fair battleground. In early 2020, Trump's intent to disparage and dismantle the voting methods of the American citizenry was already developing. Throughout the year, he publicly and baselessly attacked mail-in voting in particular, despite being encouraged by those close to him to embrace it as a tool for use by his voting base. In doing so, he undermined the public's trust in one of the most important institutions of the American Republic: the vote. Trump frequently refused to accept the possibility of a loss, declaring "the only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged." Indeed, he had the same attitude before the 2016 election, which he won.
To view any one part of this story in a vacuum is to impede one's ability to fully comprehend Donald Trump's crimes. He has shown that he lacks any regard for the rule of law, democratic processes, and the peaceful transfer of power, preferring to scramble to secure maximum power for himself for as long as possible by preventing the will of the people from being respected, and by willingly and knowingly disseminating false information. Helped along by the likes of Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and countless others, Trump embarked on a concerted and corrupt campaign to defraud the American people and install himself as a dictator.
In the days and weeks following election day on November 3, 2020, the lies of the former president, his team, and his supporters broadened significantly. Dominion Voting Systems, for example, whose machines were used in twenty-eight states in the 2020 election, became the center of a web of entirely unfounded conspiracy theories. Claims about Dominion ranged from the allegation that they are a company started in Venezuela, meant to fix elections for Hugo Chavez, to the assertion that their machines started out with a count of 35,000 votes for the Democrats before voting even began.
In the first few days of November, Trump's closest advisors and aides presented him with predictions about the election, clearly explaining exactly what could (or, incidentally, "would") occur on and after election day. Trump, however, had other plans. He aimed to exploit the significance of the timing of vote-tallying. Republican voters are generally more inclined to vote in person, while Democrats are more likely to vote through a mail-in ballot. This disparity creates what is known as a "Red Mirage", where Republicans appear to win on election day. In the days following, it's only logical that the count fluctuates as mail-in (and other) votes are counted and recounted. Regardless, American voters have been utilizing mail-in ballots in growing rates over the past few decades, so it would be absurd to demonize them as a voting method without good cause.
As that summer progressed, polls increasingly reflected an edge to his opponent Joe Biden, and Trump knew that drastic measures were necessary if he wished to maintain his presidency. As November and its election day arrived, he was faced with the reality that he had lost the election, and so he and his team dedicated all their efforts into preparing to overturn the American people's decision. Trump knew and understood that a Red Mirage occurs in many elections, having been briefed by his campaign manager and others close to him on the topic. In spite of his team's advice, Trump recklessly bulled ahead with the deceitful claim that he won the election.
It all leads back to Trump. Mike Pence would not have been pressured into acknowledging multiple slates of electors on January 6th if not for Trump. There would not have been a "Save America" protest-turned-riot that day without him. Seven people wouldn't have died as a result of that day if not for him. The lies that fed that protest would not have been perpetuated if not for him. Indeed, the lies would not have been told in the first place. No signers of alternate slates of electors needed to betray democracy, yet they did, because Trump asked them to. He should and could have conceded his loss with dignity. Instead, Trump kicked and screamed while lying and scheming, all while whatever was left of his credibility and legacy disintegrated beneath him. He should have obeyed the most basic rules of etiquette and common sense as a presidential candidate and not attempted to call the election early. At the very least, he should not have made up claims of election fraud before it was even possible to have evidence of such claims. There are many things Trump should, or should not, have done.
There is great sadness in witnessing one man contribute so greatly to the decay of political discourse. We need not demonize each other the way he does, we need not ignore each other the way he does, and we must not engage in or encourage the destruction of democratic processes to obey the whims of a man who declares he would be a "dictator on day one". Since January 6th, 2021, and in response to the many indictments naming him, Trump and his legal team have tried as hard as possible to not cooperate with their investigators. Their most successful "defense" has been their request for criminal immunity. The Supreme Court's July 1st, 2024 decision to grant Trump even more than the criminal immunity he wanted only makes this story more frustrating.
Far too much information relates to this case for me to detail here, so I encourage every reader to do their own research and acquaint themselves with this story in the same way I did: through accessing publicly available information, including transcripts, audio, video, official reports, leaked documents, and criminal indictments. Additionally, this piece is not exactly an explicit rebuttal of Trump's policies, as far as they exist(ed), so much as it is a simple condemnation of his behaviour, goals, and character. In other words, some reasons for one supporting Trump, either historically or now in 2024, will not necessarily be contradicted here, since this is not an exhaustive attack against his entire political career. That said, I challenge anyone to come up with any reason for viewing Trump as a viable political candidate after understanding the story of the 2020 United States election. In pursuit of my goal of understanding, the nemesis of a man like this, come with me as we walk through Donald J. Trump's earnest attempt to see American democracy go up in flames.
Laying the Tinder
Having spent months before the election casting doubt on voting methods with no evidence whatsoever to back up any of his claims, Trump was ready and rearing to continue campaigning unethically past November 3rd. There was never any potential in his mind of a change in administration occurring, since he was always going to declare victory despite what the vote counts inevitably said. On July 19th, 2020, journalist Chris Wallace, on his show at the time Fox News Sunday, asked Trump an important question, one which is typically easy for a presidential candidate to answer.
"Can you give a direct answer if you will accept the election?" Wallace asked. Trump replied, "I have to see. Look, you - I have to see. No I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time either."
This should immediately raise red flags for even the most casual enjoyers of democracy, but it's not the only issue to take with Trump in this interview. He also lied about his opponent Joe Biden's position on defunding the police and refused to accept that he could be wrong about it when contradicted by Wallace. Some time before, Trump had encouraged Biden to complete a cognitive test, one which Trump claimed he had "aced". When Wallace mentioned that he had completed the test too, Trump became emotional, angrily asserting that Wallace probably "Couldn't even do the last five questions." The test, while not specifically named, is the type that requires you to label pictures of common animals, count backwards from 100 by seven, and tap your finger whenever the examiner says the letter A in a list of letters, among other tasks. Not exactly the type of test one should boast of acing, save if the examinee suffers from dementia, or if finger painting is their favourite hobby.
Later that year, on Wednesday, September 23rd, Trump held a press conference at the White House. In that crowded room, shutters snapped and cameras flashed, illuminating Trump's bronzed face. He gazed down at the reporters arrayed in front of him and pointed to a correspondent. The man asked essentially the same question Chris Wallace had posed to him two months before.
"Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?" Trump gave another ambiguous answer. "We're going to have to see what happens. You know that. I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster." He continues, "Get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. And you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else."
In these two brief cases, Trump managed to highlight several personal flaws. All of these faults are consistent with his conduct in other public appearances and indicate his lack of suitability as a political candidate.
Trump refused to grant that he would peacefully concede the presidential race. It should be obvious why it is undesirable for the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world to not want to surrender his power before the will of the people.
Trump betrayed the brittle fragility of his ego. He attempted to convince Wallace and the show's viewers that he really is super-duper, extra smart, and that Wallace is nowhere close to as clever as him. It was a child-like attempt at proving himself. Presidents, and presidential candidates, should probably be above such things.
Trump willingly lied about his political opponents. One of the hottest topics at the time was police funding, accompanied by other important social issues, in the wake of George Floyd's murder. There was no indication that Joe Biden was for "defunding the police", yet Trump still asserted that was the case. Chris Wallace contradicted him, Trump got offended that he was disagreed with, and they promptly moved on. It is unacceptable for a political candidate to lie so blatantly about their rivals, particularly when those lies are around such hot-button issues. Trump lies so willingly, frequently, and consistently, that I have begun wondering if he ever tells the truth.
Trump brought up the mail-in ballots once more. Not only did he reassert the usual lies about the ballots, but he also claimed that "The Democrats know it better than anyone else.", pointing to the conspiracy theory that the Democrats control the fabled crookedness of the voting system. Without Trump having ever provided any evidence, one must acknowledge that if they believed his theories, they only did so because he was irresponsibly speculating, and not because of the merit of his claims. If he didn't have a reason to be claiming them in the first place, then he was either blatantly lying out of self-interest or under the delusion that he is the recipient of divine command.
After election day on November 3rd, the distortion from the Red Mirage warped public perception and the count fluctuated as various chunks of votes were gradually counted. By November 4th, the Trump campaign had already begun filing lawsuits, requesting recounts, and emboldening their voter base to protest and even, in some cases, harass voting station workers. However, by November 7th, Joe Biden's win was announced, and the Red Mirage cleared away. Biden accepted the win with a comforting statement about unity. Trump provided the opposite and continued pushing conspiracy theories and partial truths to control election-related perceptions throughout the country. He refused to concede under the comically ironic pretense of being a champion of democracy all while maliciously working to impede democratic processes.
Later, on January 2, 2021, after Georgia's vote count was verified with three recounts, and mere days before the certification of the vote on January 6th, Trump spoke with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on a conference call. The hour-long conversation, whose participants also included legal counsel on either side, was mostly Trump incessantly rambling about voter fraud he alleged was occurring in Georgia and elsewhere. To bring his justice to Georgia, Trump pressured Raffensperger to "find" precisely the number he needed to be ahead of Biden in the state (~11,000), and even claimed that he won by more than 400,000 votes in Georgia alone.
At every turn, Raffensperger denied Trump's claims. When he requested evidence he was, unsurprisingly, never provided with any. Frighteningly, Trump leveled something of a threat at Raffensperger and his legal counsel Ryan Germany by suggesting that they may be criminally liable if they failed to find the fraud he was speaking of, saying "It's more illegal for you than it is for them, because you know what they did and you're not reporting it." Trump's own appointed Attorney General William Barr said his Department of Justice found no widespread fraud (leading to Trump forcing his resignation). Countless people at various levels of government all vouched for the security of the portions of the election they presided over. Trump's inability to provide any compelling evidence of any sort while maintaining his irrational convictions illustrates the frailty of his position.
Those on Trump's campaign and legal teams, including Bill Stepien, who served as Trump's campaign manager from July 2020 onwards, frequently fact-checked Trump in real time and to his face. Although presented with reason and reality, Trump never let up with his theories. A portion of his team were willing to launch some legal actions related to the election, such as recounts where they may be warranted, but Stepien and the others were not willing to pursue anything related to conspiracy theories that had no grounding in reality. For that, Trump needed people who wouldn't say no to him. Trump needed Rudy Giuliani.
Adding the Kindling
Rudolph "Rudy" Giuliani had already been working with Trump before the 2020 election, though it was his action in this story that resulted in him being disbarred in July, 2024. After many years as a prosecutor, then as New York City mayor, and then some time spent twiddling his thumbs at his consulting firm, Giuliani joined the Trump cohort. He served as a general advisor behind the pretense of other titles, as well as personal lawyer to President Trump. Giuliani's accolades include contributing to Trump's defense in the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in 2016 and spearheading the pressuring of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to various ends. During this time, Giuliani admitted that he maintained foreign clients and delivered paid speeches for foreign groups. However, according to the Washington Post, Giuliani "never registered with the Justice Department on behalf of his overseas clients, asserting it is not necessary because he does not directly lobby the U.S. government and is not charging Trump for his services." Considering the potential for conflicts of interest, a man with Giuliani’s proximity to the President of the United States providing private counsel to unknown foreign parties should be a huge ethics concern.
Giuliani was a vital part of The Trump team’s plan, which has now become known as the False Electors Scheme. It began with a document called "The Chesebro Memo", written by a man named Kenneth Chesebro, a volunteer legal advisor to the Trump Campaign. His memo provided the recommendation that Trump-Pence electors in particular states meet and cast their votes despite Republicans losing the vote in those states. With the recommendations from this memo, Trump and his team nurtured the False Electors Scheme, culminating in an unlawful attempt at stopping the peaceful transfer of power.
The Scheme began with collecting individuals willing to act as Republican electors, but who were not duly chosen Republican electors, in several battleground states. Next, they needed to forge certificates which purport to verify the votes of those electors and submit them to the National Archives. Finally, they had to rely on Vice-President Mike Pence to acknowledge "competing slates of electors" during the electoral vote-certifying joint session of Congress on January 6th, thus completing the bulk of the plan and delaying the certification of the vote. You may be asking yourself; "Republican electors? Slates of electors? Certifying the vote two months after election day?" Before we continue, here’s a brief detour through the federal electoral system of the United States.
Voting laws may differ slightly by state, though the overall idea is the same. As an American voter, you're not voting directly for your presidential candidate. For example, a vote cast for the Democrats in November by a citizen of Arkansas is their indication that they want the Democrat electors, who were selected by Arkansas’ Democratic Party, to vote for the Democrat’s presidential candidate in December when the electors cast their votes. By the time election day rolls around, parties will have nominated and selected these individuals based on service and loyalty to the party or otherwise warranted recognition. These individuals make up each state's "slate" of electors, and the same process applies to all parties. If the popular vote in Arkansas is won by the Democrat slate of electors, then every elector selected by the Democratic Party of Arkansas will cast their electoral votes for the Democratic Party's candidate.
The number of electoral votes awarded to each state is equal to its number of Senators, which is always two, plus its number of Representatives, which depends on the state's census results. In all, there are currently 538 electoral votes, and a count of 270 or more is sufficient for a candidate to win the race. After Election Day in early November, several weeks pass before the electors cast their votes in December. After that, a few more weeks pass until the Certification of the Vote in early January. It was the Certification of the Vote that those attacking the Capitol in 2021 wished to divert or prevent.
Trump and Giuliani laboured to find enough people in their target states willing to commit fraud and act as false electors before the electors voted. Again, these electors would be false because they were not chosen by their state's Republican party, and they did not win their state’s vote. Trump and Giuliani's efforts paid off, so the team forged Certificates of Votes complete with the necessary declarations and signatures from those false electors, and sent the Certificates to the Office of the Federal Register in the National Archives. They were written exactly as lawful slates of electors would be written and submitted exactly as they would be submitted. Of the seven false slates from Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and New Mexico, only the slates from Pennsylvania and New Mexico contained language that identified them as lacking legal standing.
After Biden won the Electoral College vote on December 14, 2020, the Trump team anxiously worked to convince Republicans to support the Scheme in advance of January 6th, the Certification of the Vote. The Scheme required bizarre and unconstitutional legal theorizing by lawyer John Eastman, but I'll shed light on his contribution later. Trump’s scheme needed the American people to be sufficiently confused, such that they could be taken advantage of, and nothing creates confusion like lies.
In the days and weeks following Election Day on November 3rd, 2020, deceit flooded political media, as figures like Sidney Powell began repeatedly appearing as a guest on Fox News to make outlandish and unsupported claims about how the election had been stolen. Rudy Giuliani himself also appeared on Fox to reinforce the same claims. The loudest voices leveled their allegations against Dominion, the voting machine company. These three quotes are a glimpse into Powell's claims, many amplified to millions of Americans and endorsed by Fox News and its hosts.
"There were 35,000 votes added to every Democrat candidate just to start their voting off. It's like getting your $500 of Monopoly money to begin with when you haven't done anything, and it was only for Democrats.", to Fox News host Lou Dobbs, in reference to Arizona.
“Well, obviously [Nancy Pelosi and her chief of staff, Richard Blum] have invested in [Dominion Voting Software] for their own reasons and are using it to commit this fraud to steal votes.”, to Fox News host Maria Bartiromo.
"The computer glitches could not and should not have happened at all. That's where the fraud took place, where they were flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist.", in response to a question from Fox News host Maria Bartiromo.
Powell never offered any evidence for her wild assertions. In the defamation lawsuit filed and won by Dominion against Fox News in the years following the 2020 election, Dominion's lawyers argued that the closest they found to evidence for Powell's claims was an e-mail she had forwarded to Maria Bartiromo, originally from a Minnesota artist. The artist, while referring to her own assertions as "wackadoodle", claimed to be able to travel through time and alleged to receive messages from the wind. Internally, Fox ridiculed the artist and her claims, knowing that they could not be considered evidence. Throughout the entire electoral process of 2020, even Fox's own internal fact-checking department was unable to support the claims that its hosts and guests were making or encouraging, yet that did not stop the broadcasting of lies. Here's what those at Fox News had to say about Powell and these theories behind the scenes.
"Sidney Powell is lying." Tucker Carlson, to his producer Alex Pfeiffer, November 16, 2020, in private texts.
"That whole narrative that Sidney was pushing. I did not believe it for one second." Sean Hannity.
"Incorrect" and "not evidence of widespread fraud." Fox's internal fact-checking department, regarding the Dominion allegations, November 13 and November 20, 2020.
"There is NO evidence of fraud. None." Bret Baier, Fox Chief Political Correspondent, November 5, 2020.
"No reasonable person would have thought that." Chris Stirewalt, Fox Politics Editor, on whether the allegation that Dominion rigged the election was true.
Fox willingly contributed to the corruption of political discourse because their ratings took a hit after they called Arizona for Biden when the vote count was only at 73%, leading to a Trump-tantrum. They must have thought that lying was their only route back to being a gem of the journalism world. However, Fox News programming wasn't the only means through which the Trump team pursued the confusing of the American mind. Giuliani and the rest of the Election Legitimacy Team that Trump put him in charge of launched dozens of frivolous lawsuits aimed at sowing maximum disarray in legislative halls, courts, and the public sphere. All of their sixty-two suits were thrown out for lack of or poor evidence, were withdrawn by the Trump team, or were rejected for lack of legal standing.
Giuliani's true colours are clear in a defamation suit naming him and other defendants including One America News Network and its owners. The suit was filed by Georgia election workers and mother and daughter, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss. The general allegations of Giulani's lie, amplified by OAN, was that Freeman and Moss engaged in the introduction of fraudulent containers of illegal votes into their vote-counting duties, counted single votes multiple times, and plugged "mysterious" USB drives into Dominion voting machines, and that this was all caught on the few minutes of video that they chose to circulate.
A more thorough analysis reveals the time before and after, and indicates that Giulani's claims were entirely fabricated. That is, except the claim that the targets of his defamation were caught on video. The whole thing was caught on video. Giuliani was only interested in the few seconds that seemed to prove his point. As part of his defense, Giuliani argued that it was his first amendment privilege to lie. A jury ruled in favour of Freeman and Moss, awarding them $148 million in damages. I doubt the money these two women were awarded will heal the wounds left by the threats, harassment, and other cruel conduct directed at them by those who believed that Trump and Giuliani were above reproach.
The Scheme’s lies and the willingness with which they were spread are significant because it is everyday people that they infected and harmed. These liars; be they lawyers, politicians... many are empty suits; mere grifters bent solely on achieving their own selfish ends. Acting with harsh and elitist detachment, they give little consideration, if any, to the effects on the lives of normal people by their lies and machinations. Too often those who pay the price are the same ones being duped, leaving the wannabe tyrants to play checkers with people for pieces.
Trump's supporters responded to his loss in a torrent of various activities. Some harassed voting station workers like Freeman and Moss. Some threatened politicians and other civil servants. Some intentionally edited video clips to further a particular narrative on social media. Some attended huge protests against the "fraud" of the election. Many more watched it all unfold. A vocal and prepared minority adopted a more organized approach to fighting for their president; that man from whom they knew the election had been stolen.
Stacking the Fuel
Convinced they had mere weeks before their country was taken from them, individuals like Enrique Tarrio and Elmer Rhodes, the respective leaders of groups The Proud Boys and The Oath Keepers, engaged in the development of plans meant to stop the proceedings set for January 6th. That is, these men and their groups communicated, schemed, organized, and armed themselves in preparation for a violent breach of the Capitol with the intent of stopping the Certification of the Vote. They wished to stop the lawful transfer of power from one President to the next. The Proud Boys and The Oath Keepers may be distinct in leadership and origin, but there is evidence that the two groups coordinated before January 6th, perhaps hoping that their combined attempt at insurrection would be the most effective strategy. Coordinated or not, both groups were independently ready on January 6th with weapons, protection, and communication equipment.
The Proud Boys, a group whose identity is derived entirely from being loyal to Trump and opposed to Antifa, has been active in the United States since its founding in 2016. The all-male group protests and counter-protests, often using violence when engaging in altercations with their opponents. The group is a fraternity-style street gang, and in the days and weeks following November 3rd, 2020, they refused to accept Donald Trump's loss. Instead, Tarrio and others openly challenged the results and spread false claims of election fraud on social media, and privately began planning for violent action to enforce their will on January 6th, 2021. Some of Tarrio's public statements, which can be found along with significantly more context for the story in this indictment, are as follows:
"The media constantly accuses us of wanting to start a civil war. Careful what the fuck you ask for we don't want to start one...but we will sure as fuck finish one." November 6, 2020
"Fuck Unity. No quarter. Raise the black flag." November 12, 2020
"If Biden steals this election, [The Proud Boys] will be political prisoners. We won't go quietly...I promise." November 16, 2020
In response to a post on social media by Biden reading "We need to remember: We're at war with a virus - not with each other.", Tarrio wrote "No, YOU need to remember the American people are at war with YOU. No Trump...No peace. No quarter." November 25, 2020
"Let's bring this new year with one word in mind...Revolt" then, later in the day, "New Years Revolution." January 1, 2021
Many others named in the indictment made similar statements. In these few quotes, we observe Tarrio's clear and zealous attempts to maximize anger and discontent in the wake of the results of the election. The Proud Boys were ready for violence, even claiming they were ready for a civil war. They ridiculed unity and were openly "at war" with Biden and, presumably, anyone else not aligned with Trump. These men were the first to breach the Capitol building on January 6th, 2021.
Proudly clad in their black and yellow colors, with many members often wearing military-style apparel, protection, and other gear, the Proud Boys are typically easily recognizable. However, Tarrio and the rest of the leadership stressed to their members that anyone attending the action planned for January 6th must not wear their colours. They created new leadership groups and communication channels geared towards uniting Proud Boys from various state chapters, simultaneously organizing their deployment to Washington D.C. by paying for flights and accommodations. To ensure conformity, they nurtured a harsh internal culture that required members to either follow orders from the highest leadership or leave the organization. As Tarrio put it, "Fit in or fuck off."
If their intent was not yet clear, consider the document titled 1776 Returns, found here. The conspicuously named plan draws attention to the most famous insurrection in American history: the American Revolutionary War. Essentially a step-by-step guide to an insurrection on January 6th, 1776 Returns was used by the Proud Boys leadership as a framework for their plans. The directive included intending to "Fill the buildings with patriots and communicate our demands." and needing "[as] many as people as possible inside these buildings." It continues, "These are OUR buildings, they are just renting space. We must show our politicians We the People are in charge."
The Oath Keepers, while similar, are more obviously a paramilitary group or militia. Their membership is open to anyone, but they focus on recruiting current and ex-military and law enforcement. In an indictment naming Elmer Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, it has been made painfully clear how intentional every step of their plan was. The group moved in military formation, communicated via radio, carried out extensive planning and reconnaissance before executing operations, and stockpiled an absurd amount of weaponry and ammunition in preparation for the Certification of the Vote. For a taste of how they communicated privately about the upcoming events, here are some quotes:
"It will be a bloody and desperate fight. We are going to have a fight. That can't be avoided." Elmer Rhodes, December 11th, 2020, in a private message group for some Oath Keeper leaders.
"NATIONAL CALL TO ACTION FOR JAN 6th" Joshua James, leader of the Alabama chapter of the Oath Keepers, December 21st, 2020, in a leadership messaging group.
"We will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution against them. That's what's going to have to happen." Elmer Rhodes, Dec 22nd, 2020, to a regional Oath Keepers leader.
"Ammo situation. I am checking on as far as what they will have for us if (shit hits the fan). I'm gonna have a few thousand just in case. If you've got it doesn't hurt to have it. No one ever said "shit I brought too much." Kelly Meggs, leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers, January 3rd, 2021, in reference to ammunition needed for their January 6th operation.
Rhodes and his Oath Keepers wanted to be ready to meet the various needs introduced by the eventual eruption of action on January 6th. They massed firearms at the outskirts of D.C., provided instructions for individual units, and planned to utilize Quick Reaction Force units to mobilize at a moment's notice to any area that needed the support. These two groups formed the solid backbone of the mob on January 6th, providing the strength and initiative necessary to lead the crowd and stop the certification of the vote.
The mob, arrayed around the Capitol on January 6th, hoped that they would be sufficiently intimidating to its inhabitants. To satisfy them, Vice-president Mike Pence had to accept the alternate slates of electors, thereby unilaterally re-electing Trump as President, or send the decision "back to the states", perhaps resulting in Trump hanging onto power anyway. Of the methods the mob employed to intimidate Pence and the members of American Congress into surrendering before their will, perhaps the most chilling was the erecting of a gallows within sight of the Capitol while chanting "Hang Mike Pence!"
These death threats, and the conviction with which they were openly uttered, are morally repugnant, antidemocratic, and unamerican. They, and many of the rest of the beliefs carried by the mob, were also, unsurprisingly, based on a lie originating with and propagated by the Trump team. This is where the previously tabled discussion of legal academic John Eastman is revisited, for it is in his "Eastman Memos", as they have come to be called, that we find yet another bright illumination of the Trump team's commitment to igniting their carefully prepared funeral pyre for American democracy.
To successfully coup the government and ignore the votes of tens of millions of people, Trump thought he needed a semblance of legal support for his plans. He found it in John Eastman, who is now, as of 2024, indicted for his role in the attempted overturning of the 2020 election and recommended for disbarment. Eastman joined the Trump team two months before the election, though it wasn't until December that he rose to prominence. Responding to a challenge from a Trump staffer, Eastman wrote his first memo and the second memo was written shortly thereafter. Though there are differences, both argued that Mike Pence, as vice-president, was the "ultimate arbiter" in matters of contested electoral votes. Eastman contended that Pence could choose to accept or reject slates of electors as he wished. The problem? There were no real contested votes. The "alternate" slates of electors sent to the National Archives by the Trump campaign were fraudulent, illegitimate, and had no certification from any state legislature. As we have established, Trump lost the votes in those seven states.
Eastman’s first memo was sent to various politicians and officials, likely to gauge interest in the coming coup attempt, but then it was leaked to the press. Eastman claimed it was only preliminary, and expanded on his argument in the second memo, though why he would have sent an only "preliminary" argument for a coup to others is unclear. Despite there being two, the arguments are very similar. Eastman wanted to ignore parts of the Electoral Count Act, a law which was followed without issue for nearly 140 years. His justification for ignoring it lay in an interpretation of the Constitution that Eastman himself acknowledged would be shut down in the Supreme Court 9-0. During the coming Certification of the Vote, the Scheme required Mike Pence to declare Trump the winner outright by not counting the Democrat Electors' votes if they came from the seven "contested" states. Alternatively, Eastman suggested Pence could decide to send the election decision "back to the states" in the face of contested votes, allowing states to each cast their own single vote for President and, if they voted along party lines, Trump would have been elected despite the freely-exercised choice of the American people.
The Eastman plan to overthrow the government is made more transparently malicious and corrupt when you consider that Eastman argued that such measures were necessary in the face of the "illegal actions by state and local election officials" during the 2020 election. However, we've been through such claims, and nothing has ever been convincing. In many of the seven states named in the Memos the vote count was quite close between the two candidates, though that was not true for New Mexico, where Biden won an easy 54.3% over Trump's 43.5%, or by just under 100,000 votes. As far as I'm aware, there were no significant claims regarding New Mexico's voting process or results at the time, and it appears that Eastman may have included New Mexico purely because he needed to discount those votes for the Scheme to be successful. What's more, Eastman asserted not only that this argument couldn't have been applied by Al Gore in 2001, but also that Kamala Harris will not be able to apply this argument in 2025. Despite Trump publicly and privately pressuring Pence to go along with the plan, Pence did not budge, instead refusing to betray the American people. At this point, Eastman's arguments should appear comically baseless.
The scene was set. Donald Trump continued to relentlessly lie and communicate to the public virtually entirely through conspiracy theories. Every time he tweeted or held a rally, he spouted one falsehood or another, many of which had been demonstrably untrue for weeks, pointed out to Trump by his own team. In the case of Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, and many more like them, these lies severely impacted the lives of the people that Trump had previously sworn to protect and fight for. They encouraged people to doubt a system that they should be able to trust all so that one man and his cadre could hold onto the power they so desperately craved. Between Trump, his team, and the media supporting him, both mainstream and alternative, enough doubt had been cast on the electoral system to incite tens of thousands of people to arrive at Washington D.C. and the United States Capitol for the Certification of the Vote on January 6th, 2021. Like a forest long without rain, the very air cried out for a spark.
Lighting the Match
It was a chilly morning on January 6th, and many thousands arrived in Washington to hear their President speak. The "Save America" rally that day was held at the Ellipse, a part of President's Park, within view of the White House and a short walk from the Capitol. Among other methods, Trump had riled up his base by announcing "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th" and, "Be there, will be wild!" Kelly Meggs, leader of the Florida Chapter of the Oath Keepers, whom I quoted earlier to illustrate the militia's intent to be heavily armed on the day of, said in response to his desperate leader:
"Trump said It's gonna be wild!!!!!!! It's gonna be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD that's what he's saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack your s***!!"
The Certification of the Vote was Trump's last real chance at forcing his "victory." During the previous two months, Trump had succeeded at humiliating himself by begging and coercing people like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find votes", by pressing Attorney General William Barr and his Department of Justice to "find" cases of voter fraud, and by consistently discarding the truth in favour of disseminating vicious and damaging lies. Trump’s efforts were intended to force the American people to rely on him amongst the confusion that he and his team knowingly sowed. His team had even organized the submission of fake slates of electors to the National Archives in Congress in a final effort to upend the process of selecting the American President. In the wake of these lies, Trump encouraged the angry and deceived mob of tens of thousands of people, many of whom Trump and his security apparatus knew were armed, to arrive at the Capitol to press his desires on its inhabitants. On January 6th, 2021, Trump's years-long endeavour of nurturing a cult of personality was revealed to be built on the hope that his base would violently act to impose his will in the eleventh hour.
Each speaker at the Ellipse that day was intent on reminding the crowd that their country was mere hours from being stolen from them, and that violence was the only way to save it. As the speeches continued, so too did the crescendo of lies and hateful rhetoric. Between speakers, a voice was projected by the speaker system, preventing all attendees from going even a few minutes without hearing a conspiracy theory. In the tone of a political advertisement, each commercial reasserted already-debunked or simply unfounded conspiracy theories about the election and the Democrats. The speakers were also very clearly focused on violence and terms related to the implementation of violence, like "warrior", "fighting", and "trial by combat". That last one was recommended by Rudy Giuliani during his speech just before Trump, and other references to violence throughout the speeches are too numerous to bother counting. Instead, flip through some of the speeches yourself, like at this link.
Just in case any of the rally's participants had forgotten, US Representative Madison Cawthorn reminded them that the Capitol is only "two miles down Pennsylvania Avenue" and that "At 12 o'clock today we will be contesting the election." As innocuous as these comments may seem at face value, I would argue that Cawthorn had the intent of reminding the crowd how easy it would be to continue the protest at the actual Capitol. Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman were the final speakers before Trump, and Giuliani began with an authoritative and persuasive "Everything that has been outlined as the plan today is perfectly legal."
With an onslaught of venomous rhetoric, Giuliani reasserted falsehood after falsehood. Among them were a claim that the election had been "stolen in seven states", a statement alleging the "questionable constitutionality of the Election Counting Act.", and a reference to voting machines as "Crooked Dominion machines". Giuliani, like Trump, was still maliciously lying. The Trump team had known for at least several weeks that their claims were all untrue, yet they had proceeded with their plan, disrespecting and misleading the American people with every breath. Giuliani's most visceral contribution to the galvanizing of the crowd that day was his striking "Let's have trial by combat!” Eastman's contribution to their speech at the Ellipse was confined to more lies, and I won't bother repeating them here. The pair did their job, serving to effectively prepare the crowd for the protest's main event.
Trump took the stage, and his speech was essentially no different from the others. He simply continued to lie. Trump claimed he was told by "real pollsters" that it was impossible for him to have lost the election, that "They rigged (this) election like they've never rigged an election before.", and that the "number one constitutional lawyer in our country" says that Mike Pence "has the absolute right [to] do the right thing" and overturn the election. During his diatribe, Trump constantly employed language related to violence, similar to previous speakers, including telling the crowd "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.", and he let chants of "Fight for Trump!" wash over him while he enjoyed the enthralled mob. Some claim that Trump's statement "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." is proof that he did not want violence. That statement came twenty minutes into his hour and fifteen minute-long speech, leaving it easily forgotten. The "Fight like hell" and "you're not going to have a country anymore" statements came in the final few minutes of his speech, right before he sent his adherents to the Capitol to continue the protest.
Trump's plea to Mike Pence often goes forgotten or unnoticed by listeners of the speech, since many people weren't keeping up with the False Electors Scheme in real time. Nonetheless, in appealing to Mike Pence to do "the right thing", Trump was asking his Vice-President to discount lawfully selected slates of electors in favour of his team's fraudulent set. The illegitimate slates were purported to be necessary because of alleged election fraud. However, there was never any evidence of the election fraud they claimed had occurred. We know from copious amounts of evidence, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Trump knew he was lying. Therefore, Donald Trump was insidiously requesting that Mike Pence cast aside hundreds of years of American democracy in favour of Trump's own egotistical and power-hungry ambitions. In sending his supporters to the Capitol, Trump had struck his match.
Cheering and chanting, the crowd advanced to the Capitol, where the riot was already underway. It was not just passionate, disgruntled citizens who wished to peacefully protest on that day. Thousands engaged in organized attempts to incite others to breach the Capitol with the goal of stopping the peaceful transfer of power. Agitators meandered through the crowd equipped with loudspeakers, some claiming the Democrats eat babies, many others utilizing the simple and direct "Storm the Capitol!" Once at the Capitol grounds and its flimsy fencing, the mob proceeded to terrorize its inhabitants and security, frequently threatening them with an impending assault. Among the tens of thousands gathered around the Capitol were hundreds of members of The Proud Boys, The Oath Keepers, and other groups who, as discussed earlier, served to lead the mob in crucial ways, working to accomplish the goal of overwhelming Capitol security and occupying the building. Indeed, it was now-convicted Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola, equipped with a stolen riot shield, who was the first to breach the Capitol building. Imagine, if you can, the terror those Capitol police officers were exposed to, knowing they would be as pebbles in the tide if the mob was sufficiently motivated, and knowing not what end they may meet if a clash were to begin.
After a few inciting events at the guard postings and barricades, many areas of the Capitol grounds descended into chaos, with makeshift weapons swinging and battle lines heaving. Capitol security frequently had to abandon their posts to regroup with others, taking casualties from injuries the entire time. The inhabitants of the building feared for their lives, and some barricaded themselves into safety within the depths of the Capitol. It wasn't just Mike Pence who the mob targeted; rioters wanted to find Nancy Pelosi as well, though what they wanted to do with elderly non-combatants, I know not, unless the gallows were not just for show. The hallowed halls of United States Congress were eventually swarming with angry protestors, scorning and defiling the memory of their ancestors.
Two rioters were killed that day, and many more people, both Capitol Police and rioters, were seriously injured. One woman, Ashli Babbitt, died when shot through the upper chest as she attempted to breach a barricade leading to evacuating members of government. Another protestor, Rosanne Boyland, died of an amphetamine overdose while being engulfed and trampled by the angry mob; that overwhelming tide of people who were too busy ridiculing the recent memory of George Floyd by chanting "I can't breathe!" to notice one of their own in pain. By succeeding in occupying the building, these peaceful patriots delayed the certification of the vote that day, though only for several hours or so; a far cry from their supposed ultimate goal of installing Trump as their rightful president.
Protestors arrived in Washington D.C. that day to hear Trump speak and to take part in a political demonstration on his behalf. They yearned for validation and identity in the face of a government and society that they believed had hated and ostracized them. They wished to be heard, to be seen, and to matter. Trump recognized their volatile, roiling emotions and saw an opportunity. Having successfully convinced his base that the election was stolen right from their hands, Trump then capitalized on the advantage forged by his cult of personality. He had lied to, swindled, and profited off those who, at a vulnerable time, had trusted and believed in him. On January 6th, desperately fanning the flames of disorder, Trump had hoped to distress his followers even further, skillfully weaponizing and directing their anger, desperation, and anguish.
As if a king inspiring his troops, Trump had initially planned to be at the Capitol to participate in the protest. If he had been there, perhaps he would have taken a photo with a supporter on the "Hang Mike Pence" gallows, or stormed through halls and smashed through doors shouting "Come on out, Nancy!" Such an outing was deemed too great a security risk. Instead, he withdrew to his private dining room in the White House, where he would spend the following few hours sulking and refusing to call off his supporters, preferring instead to savour the torment of those who dared to defy him.
Admiring the Flames
Mike Pence's importance to Trump's scheme was a consequence of the duties of Vice President as they relate to the Certification of the Vote. It is the job of the Vice President to open the States' votes during the joint session of Congress, present them for counting, call for and hear legitimate objections, and then finally declare the certified winner of the federal election. On January 6th, Trump knew that the ball would be in Pence's court, and he needed his Vice President to play along. As soon as Biden's win was announced on November 7, 2020, Pence had tried to comfort his President. He encouraged Trump to look forwards, even to consider running for re-election in 2024. That prospect was too distant to be tangible to Trump and, instead, he turned his attention to retaining power. Despite Trump's commitment to the lie of election fraud, Pence's dedication to American democracy was strong, and he was forced to persistently reject his President's false narratives, including when John Eastman lectured him in the Oval Office on his supposedly lawful role during the coming Certification of the Vote.
Trump was squeezing Pence right up to the morning of his speech at the Ellipse. Each conversation was a reiteration of the same disgraceful conduct that had become so characteristic of Trump, and when Pence still refused to assist the other's dictatorial desires, Trump threatened to criticize Pence publicly. Considering that Trump knew many of his supporters were armed on January 6th, we can safely assume that he understood how significant a threat a public condemnation would be to Pence's safety. Further, we can clearly infer that he was leveraging this "criticism" against Pence to force him to act in accordance with the Scheme. Trump acted on his threat when, at 2:24pm, after finding out that rioters had breached the Capitol, he tweeted:
“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution … USA demands the truth!”
Vice President Mike Pence had been swiftly evacuated from the Senate shortly before rioters broke into the building and was moved to a secure location, where he would wait out the attack with his wife Karen, daughter Charlotte, and brother Greg. He didn't lose any time and went right to work writing his speech for when the Certification resumed. With so much violence at the Capitol, you may wonder if Trump inquired after Pence and his family's safety, or into the safety of other inhabitants of the Capitol. He did no such thing. Instead, he allegedly expressed support for the idea of hanging Pence, according to sources close to his own chief of staff at the time, Mark Meadows.
No, Trump was far too busy to express concern for another human. He had to bask in the warmth of his fire, had to watch the glow of the flames play off the last look of the White House he knew he would enjoy. While Trump was seated in the comfort of his private dining room close to the Oval Office, various advisors and aides came and went, pleading with him to call off his supporters. Many of the pleas to which he turned up his nose came from allies, those such as White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene, Kevin McCarthy, and Mike Gallagher, Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, chief of staff Mark Meadows, several former staffers, and even his own children, Donald Jr. and Ivanka.
Trump waited until 2:38pm, well past the onset of violence and 14 minutes after his condemnation of Pence, to ask his supporters to "Support Capitol Police" and "Stay peaceful". Asking a violent mob to "stay" peaceful when they hadn't been peaceful for hours is a terrible attempt at regaining order, but even that was also far too little, far too late. In the next minute, Dominic Pezzola, the Proud Boy mentioned earlier, became the first to smash a window and allow access into the Capitol. After his tweet at 2:38pm, Trump was presented with a statement that included a condemnation of the violence, though he never published it. At 3:13pm, Trump once more tweeted for "everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful." Conspicuously though, he did not ask for anyone to go home, nor did he actually condemn the violence. His daughter Ivanka had no problem providing a wholehearted condemnation of the violence on Twitter, where she wrote "American Patriots - any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable. The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful."
Only after two of his supporters lay dead and hundreds more were injured did Trump decide to ask the mob to disband and go home, saying in a video released at 4:17pm "You have to go home now. We have to have peace." U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died on January 7th from two strokes caused by homemade chemical spray that rioters had used on him. Four more officers, Gunther Hashida, Kyle DeFreytag, Jeffrey Smith, and Howard Liebengood, took their own lives after the attack. They were, I’m sure, haunted by the helplessness and fear they felt when faced with the overwhelming mob that had believed Trump's lies and rallied to his calls. More than one hundred other officers were also injured, some severely.
So, did Trump incite the mob to violence? Was the violence at the Capitol an insurrection? To answer these questions, listen to Trump's inflammatory speech. Pay attention to how he speaks about his opponents and the election, see how he eagerly lies to control the crowd. Watch video footage of January 6th. Observe as thousands of so-called patriots storm and occupy their own federal Capitol in an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power as decided by their electorate.
The propaganda permeating through the media after the attack at the Capitol was sickening to witness. I count myself among those who believed the dominant narrative for a time, one which underplayed virtually every aspect of the day. "It looked like a normal day." "The police were letting people through." "Pelosi didn't allow more Capitol police because she wanted the attack to happen!" An honest attempt at reviewing footage from the attack will reveal most of these claims to be baseless or, at best, a twist on the truth. It was far from a "normal day", and the almost $3 million in damage should speak to how abnormal it was. Police did "let people past", in a way, because their barricades were being overrun. It wouldn't make sense to hold one point of fortification only to be surrounded. Capitol Police were not encouraging movement past barricades or acting as tour guides, as a few common claims go. Some also cite Nancy Pelosi as having withheld additional police, yet that was not her responsibility. She also did not stop additional security from being posted, nor did she block the National Guard from being deployed.
Trump was provided as the reason for why some supporters maintained the protest at the Capitol rather than calling it quits after hearing him at the Ellipse. Trump "got everybody riled up, told everybody to head on down", one supporter said, even going so far as to say he would have left before Trump's 4:17pm video if the President had asked them to leave. After the attack, Trump continued to spurn the opportunity for growth. He ground his heels deeper into the grave of his reputation, proceeding to pathologically lie about January 6th whenever asked about it. However, despite the volume of his whines, democracy had held. Mike Pence did not give in to Donald Trump's whims. His Scheme had ended in fruitless embarrassment. The brilliance of Trump’s fire was fading before his eyes, yet still he craved its heat.
Stoking the Embers
In the three and a half years since the attack at the Capitol, Trump has been charged with dozens of felonies and convicted of more than thirty. A jury provided a guilty verdict in a sexual assault case that writer E. Jean Carroll had levelled against him, he falsified business records to hide hush money payments to sexual partners, committed fraud to tweak his tax footprint and net worth, and hoarded and hid classified documents from the White House while rebuffing the government's every attempt to reclaim them. His Scheme even prompted action in the form of a new law: the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, aimed at never again allowing the malign events of the 2020 election.
A grand jury determined there was enough evidence to bring criminal charges against him, indicting and formally charging the former President for attempting to subvert the 2020 election. If he is found guilty, Trump may be convicted of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, and Conspiracy Against Rights. Throughout the flurry of legal proceedings in the Trump vs United States saga, two main facets of his defense were most significant:
1. The appeal to historical precedent for "alternate slates" of electors. There are such cases, though none support the legitimacy of Trump's false slates, for his were fabricated and derived their purpose entirely from the supposed existence of voter fraud and other baseless conspiracy theories. Each instance of alternate slates in history has context that clearly distinguishes it from Trump's blatant attempt to steal the election.
2. The claim that Presidents should be (or were already) immune from criminal prosecution. Their conception of immunity would protect any act taken in office as long as the President is acting in their official capacity as President; as long as they’re carrying out their official powers and duties. Trump's lawyers argued that if a President orders a coup, and is impeached and convicted for ordering that coup, that President would still be immune from criminal prosecution if the coup was deemed an “official act”, unless there were a statute specifically naming that limitation on the President's powers. They also argued that all the allegations against Trump (this story, in effect) fell within the core of his official duties.
The Supreme Court considered the arguments before them and, on July 1st, 2024, they announced their ruling. Perhaps dazzled by the light of Trump's flames, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that the President should be above the law. They granted a more thorough and robust protection against criminal prosecution than Trump's defense team had even asked for. Quoting from Justice Sotomayor's dissent:
"The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
One may think that, surely, any use of official powers to accomplish a private end wouldn't be covered by this conception of immunity. However, as Justice Sotomayor wrote, that is not the case. While the President is not immune from prosecution for “unofficial acts”, the Supreme Court did declare that "courts may not inquire into the President's motives" when determining whether an act was official or not, impeding potential investigations. Perhaps the most basic job of the President is simply to ensure that laws (the product of the legislative branch) are faithfully executed. How will the President ensure that laws are faithfully executed when the President is above those same laws?
Even from outside the Presidency, Trump was able to exert influence over American politics. The only situation he seemed to talk about consistently was the border crisis, and he had no shortage of claims about how the Democrats were handling it. “They're maintaining a fully open border”, “They’re sending their criminals”, yadda yadda. Yet, when a bipartisan immigration and foreign aid bill was close to being passed, Trump killed it by pressuring Republicans into voting against it. The bill would have put more officers on the border and may have helped to solve problems he purported to care about. Evidently, Trump would much rather campaign over an issue than solve it.
Trump intimidated and threatened officials into doing his bidding, pushed his Department of Justice to investigate rivals and produce evidence of voter fraud, pressured the legislative branch into capitulating before him, and has now secured the fealty of the judicial branch. The three divisions of American government (the executive, legislative, and judicial branches) are meant to complement each other and, in a perfect world, are expected to maintain and apply necessary checks and balances to the end of an optimally functioning, representative government. Therefore, American democracy is exercised through various channels of an intricate state structure. The President and the executive wing have no place engulfing and controlling the other two branches, yet that is exactly what Trump desires. Trump wishes to be an executive that can realize each of his wishes, impulses, and passions; he longs to be supreme, moving his pieces around on the playing board however he may. Trump yearns to be a king.
The first debate with President Joe Biden is infamous for Biden's poor performance. He frequently lost track of his thoughts, and misquoted statistics. However, Trump was lucky that Biden caught the attention of the public eye that night, for Trump was hardly better. He may be more confident in how he speaks, and he may have had more rigor in him than Biden that night, but the man is an imbecile. If Trump was an intelligent and prepared candidate, it would have been easy to call Biden out for any of his many errors that night. Did he? No, he just made fun of Biden for being old and refrained from giving any real policy positions.
After that debate, Biden realized that his electorate didn't want him as a candidate. He did the wise thing, that which everyone wanted, and removed himself from the race. As he did so, he endorsed his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, for the nomination. Immediately afterward, right-wing media was filled with the claim that the next President was "being appointed" and other such nonsense. Until the American people vote and those votes are counted, no President has been chosen. Of the Democratic Party's 4,619 pledged delegates, 4,567 voted for Harris. It was not an arbitrary or mysterious decision made by the deep-state. Trump even claimed that this "switch" from Biden to Harris was akin to a boxer being switched out for a different fighter just before a title match. His self-centered brand of politics, as if the Presidential race were just some contest to win for personal glory, is pernicious and unwelcome. One reason for his extreme distress at the prospect of Kamala Harris being his opponent was that he knew he was intellectually outclassed by several orders of magnitude. Trump would no longer be able to rely on rambling unchallenged. Instead, a successful and experienced prosecutor would be grilling him in the next debate.
That is, of course, what happened in their debate. Make no mistake, I carry no particular loyalty to the Democrats or to Vice-President Kamala Harris, the reality of Trump's defeat was simply that obvious. Harris declared how Trump would act throughout the debate, and he did exactly what she predicted. He relied on falsehoods like "They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats." Trump also insisted that he has super effective, special plans for just about anything wrong on the globe, he just can't tell us what they are yet because they're secret. After the debate, Trump dodged every possibility of another one before the election; an opportunity that Harris embraced.
Examining the uproar around Kamala Harris' nomination reveals a staggering double-standard. Trump and his base jumped at the opportunity to cry foul, to claim that something insidious was going on and that the system was conspiring against him, entirely undeterred by all the ways their President so deeply disrespected the very soul of his own country. Through a dedication to corruption rarely seen, Trump attempted to disregard the freely given choices of tens of millions of Americans so he could hold onto power. He manipulated, deceived, and used as pawns all the vulnerable and misguided people that flocked to him, persuading them to storm and occupy their own Capitol building after his Vice-President refused to give in to his tyrannical ambitions. It becomes laughable to accuse the Democrats of foul play against the backdrop of Trump's crimes.
With his fire reduced to ash and ember, Trump would love nothing more than to see its light again and to once more feel the warmth of its flames. He built one before, and he may try again. It is easy to take our democratic systems and government structures for granted, easy to assume that they will always be around, safeguarding our rights and preserving the fabric of society. The story of the 2020 United States Federal Election is a powerful illustration of why we can never be too at ease, despite how robust the structures around us may seem.
Though he may exude confidence, Trump is afraid. He fears the world that sees him for what he is and trembles before an empowered electorate. He is afraid of us, all of those who can speak out against him and his crimes. Soon, the entirety of Trump's political career will be behind us, and we can recover as the wounds from his fire heal and scar. Until then, pull up a chair and warm yourself while Donald Trump's reputation and legacy go up in flames.