Yesterday I presented a case for why Trump should absolutely raise the issue of election fraud at any Senate show trial--if there is one, rather than the Senate doing the right thing and tossing the whole thing. I say "a case" because there are a number of arguments that can be advanced in this regard. Basically, my argument was along the lines that because Trump has--rightly--never conceded, he should continue on the high ground by making his argument to the nation that a Big Steal went down--not, properly speaking, an election. I argued that Trump has everything to gain--including continued credibility for the future--and absolutely nothing to lose.
In the same blog I also presented Matt Braynard's claim that he is confident that he can show that vote fraud in the very traditional sense flipped the election in a minimum of three states (his research continues): AZ, GA, and WI. That would mean that Trump won the presidential contest. Continuing developments in the news, for those who have been following it, certainly supports Braynard. Local officials continue, to the best of their ability, to defy efforts to inject transparency in all three states. Since Trump's claims of fraud are raised in the Dem House charade, Trump should, as I argue, force the issue and force the Senate to address it or to deny him his right to a full hearing. Heads Trump wins, tails the Establishment loses.
Today at The Federalist David Marcus argues for Trump to take the same approach--to argue election fraud:
Donald Trump can win his Senate trial on the merits, not just a technicality, and he should.
Marcus addresses all three counts. He's apparently not a lawyer, so he simply maintains that the constitutional issue on impeachment is 50-50 and, thus, "provides an easy out for Republican senators." That's true, but for any objective legal observer those who maintain that impeachment and a trial with penalties attached to it (banning from public office) by the Senate alone (CJ Roberts has refused to be a party to the travesty) is unconstitutional have very much the better of the argument.
As regards "incitement", Marcus goes through a brief survey of the emerging evidence that the events of January 6 at the Capitol were not actually connected to Trump's speech, and he adds:
The Senate can define [incitement] anyway they want, but they still need a standard by which to do so, and more importantly they will setting that standard in an official capacity.
If Trump’s speech was incitement to riot, then what is the limiting principle? Was Rep. Maxine Waters inciting people when she told them to get into Trump officials’ faces in 2018, all while she was pushing the big lie of Russian collusion?
That's also all true, but Trump has a far more telling argument to make regarding incitement--one which hits much closer to home for the Senate. Thomas Lifson covers that:
Chuck Schumer incited violence, threatened SCOTUS justices on steps of Supreme Court only 11 months ago
Lifson quotes Mollie Hemingway's account of Schumer's disgraceful conduct:
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer threatened the two most recently confirmed justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
The threat was so alarming that even leftist activists such as Laurence Tribe condemned it. Schumer received a rare, same-day rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who said, “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”
Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell condemned Schumer’s remarks as “astonishingly reckless and completely irresponsible.”
as well as Mark Levin's vivid description of the scene:
“[I] want to talk quickly about Chuck Schumer — you mentioned it,” Levin said. “He threatened two U.S. Supreme Court justices. He threatened the Supreme Court. He assembled a mob on the stairs of a Supreme Court that tried to break into the Supreme Court, but for that 13-foot bronze door there. And he warns those justices that they are, in fact, in for hell if they don’t vote the way he wants. He threatened the Supreme Court.
Trump is the clear winner, again, by arguing both lack of actual incitement as well as an egregious double standard.
Finally Marcus gets to the fraud issue. He begins with what we've all been discussing here--the full court press by the Left to coerce Republicans to endorse the Big Steal. Unfortunately, he soft peddles the actual evidence (I've edited that out):
Republican officials have been pressured since the riots to say that there was no widespread voter fraud. The idea seems to be that if they refuse they are also complicit. It’s absurd, of course, as this past election was one of the sloppiest in recent memory. That happens when you change the rules on the fly.
There are plenty of important irregularities in the election that really do need investigation. That is why Sen. Josh Hawley and Sen. Ted Cruz launched a symbolic effort to refuse certification in order to shine a spotlight on these irregularities. ...
Too many Republicans are being shamed now into not making a very important argument about election security. It would be the most Trump thing in the world to show up at the Senate and fight the fight they refuse to. And again, Trump’s bar would be low. We have been assured there was no fraud, no major problems in mail-in voting. Just a handful of examples would put the lie to that.
Trump seems poised to get a win when the votes are cast in his trial. The question is how big the win will be.
As we've seen, there are far more than just a handful of examples to be adduced. But Marcus' main point hits the mark. Trump seems poised to win. There's every reason for him to go for a big win and not allow any lawyers to talk him into a mere technical win. As I argued yesterday, that big win would have important political ramifications going forward regarding the illegitimacy of what went down in November--and of what is continuing.