Attempts to delay certification of 2020 US presidential election

Attempts to delay certification of the 2020 US presidential election by former President Donald Trump and a significant number of House and Senate Republicans stemmed from various reports of voting irregularities during the 2020 election. Trump's primary goal for wanting an investigation prior to the certification of the electoral college vote was to ensure the integrity of the election result, and in so doing, he was fighting to defend American democracy.^[1] The events following the Save America rally culminated in the January 6 US Capitol protests which media and Trump’s political opponents misrepresented and politicized, referring to it as an "insurrection", or attempt by then-President Trump and his supporters to "overturn" the 2020 presidential election, despite evidence supporting otherwise, including the fact that the electoral college vote was certified and Trump conceded the presidency to Biden on January 7, 2020.

There is no excuse for the chaos and riotous behavior that culminated in the tragic death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2020; hers being the only death by violence at the Capitol that day. The attempts by then-President Trump, members of Congress and peaceful protestors who wanted their objections heard prior to the electoral college certification was based on substantive arguments. During the 2020 election and 2022 midterms, there were rogue election officials who either delayed, or refused to certify an election in their respective State, some of which occurred in Arizona, Georgia, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania.^[2] The FBI investigates election crimes, such as a ballot including one or more federal candidates, or if it involves an election official abusing his duties, fraudulent voter registration, non-citizens voting. What they cannot investigate is missing items, such as mail-in ballots that were not received, or were purposely destroyed. Each State is responsible for keeping their voter roles updated, and verifying the legitimacy of a voter's registered address to avoid registering 20 non-citizens to an empty warehouse address.

Then-President Trump along with those members of Congress who supported him were seeking a congressional investigation into alleged voting irregularities prior to the certification of the Electoral College Vote. Trump’s concession of the presidency to Joe Biden also weighed heavily in the balance.^[3] Trump's opposition perceived it as an attempt to subvert the transition of power as did mainstream media when they described it as an attempted coup d'état. Media's coverage of Trump throughout his 2016 and 2020 campaigns and presidency have faced significant criticism.

Background[edit | edit source]

With the advent of the internet in its far reaching global environment, people can choose from a wide selection of news and information sources. As a result, mainstream media, also legacy media, and occasionally "the left-wing or right-wing media bubble", have been criticized for their use of clickbait headlines, political spin and/or biased journalistic opinion in their efforts to appeal to their respective demographics while trying to keep people informed.^[4] The media frenzy that resulted from Russiagate and the repeated misrepresentation and/or misinterpretation of actual events, exemplify what is often referred to as malinformation. Trump's ongoing battle with "fake news", as he refers to it, along with the challenges presented by his political opposition further serve to fan the flames of disinformation, especially with reference to the January 6 US Capitol protests, wherein left-leaning media has repeatedly referred to it an "insurrection" or an attempt to "overturn the 2020 election", while omitting important details. The aforementioned has contributed to the reason Americans' trust in media has reached an all-time low.^[5]

Following are more examples of political spin, malinformation, and disinformation originating from media and Trump's political opposition:

• The insurrection arguments against Trump are baseless as he was never formally charged with insurrection; rather, he was accused of "incitement to insurrection", which at its core is meaningless.^[6] Keeping in mind that the illegally appointed Jack Smith as Special Council requested U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss his case against Trump without prejudice, and his request was granted.^[7]
• The Colorado Supreme Court, composed entirely of judges appointed by Democrats, voted to remove Trump from the presidential ballot based on the 14th Amendment, Section 3, insurrection clause. Their action was overturned in a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.
• The January 6 House committee was treated as if it were legitimately seeking truth, but was criticized by the House Oversight Committee as illegitimate after discovering suppression of evidence and suborning of perjury in their actions.
  

In accordance with the Constitution, these flawed proceedings were overruled by the public’s vote which is the highest authority in such matters.^[6]

Media has also misrepresented or misinterpreted statements made by Trump, resulting in the publishing of misinformation, such as wrongfully attributing Trump to saying Charlottesville neo-Nazis are ‘very fine people’.^[8] They have also dismissed the possibility that wide-spread election fraud exists in numbers that would affect the outcome of an election.^[9]

Was it an insurrection?[edit | edit source]

In retrospective discussions with academics and historians, Politico's Joshua Zeitz highlighted the complexity of defining the event, asking, "So… was it an insurrection? A coup, albeit a failed one? A political protest gone awry?" Scott Althaus commented on the unprecedented volume, speed, and diversity of information available today, noting that media often reinforces existing beliefs, which contributes to political polarization in the U.S. and complicates responsible reporting on events like January 6.^[10]

Amid this landscape, Julie Kelly, a former Illinois Republican political consultant and a prominent voice in conservative media, has focused on the January 6 protests, passionately advocating for the involved defendants. At an unofficial House hearing, Kelly and other Republican lawmakers challenged the mainstream narrative surrounding the events, arguing that January 6 was a setup against peaceful Trump supporters. This alternative perspective is supported by a significant portion of conservatives, who view the events as "legitimate political discourse." Moreover, both Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have suggested they might pardon January 6 defendants, further illustrating this counternarrative’s influence within GOP politics. The convergence of political rhetoric, media challenges, and the efforts of individuals like Kelly reveals a complex landscape as the nation grapples with the implications of January 6 on its democratic norms and societal divisions.^[10]

Before certification of the 2024 presidential election, President Donald Trump pursued an investigation of the vote count which culminated in the January 6 United States Capitol protests by his supporters, some of whom became riotous after being met with resistance and excessive force by armed Capitol police upon arriving at the Capitol. Mainstream media has described the protests as an attempted coup d'état; however, their coverage of Trump overall has been highly criticized. During retrospective discussions with a group of academics and historians, Politico's Joshua Zeitz attempted to categorize the event "So… was it an insurrection? A coup, albeit a failed one? A political protest gone awry? A pathetic show of white power cosplay or the portent of something darker and more dangerous in our nation’s notdistant future?" There was no simple, defining answer. Scott Althaus responded to the unprecedented volume, speed, and diversity of information available today, highlighting how media tends to reinforce existing beliefs, contributing to political polarization in the U.S. He pointed out that media coverage struggles with reporting events that deviate from norms, as seen with the January 6th Capitol protests, suggesting that American journalism is in a challenging learning period exacerbated by economic pressures in the media industry.^[10]

One week later, Trump was impeached for incitement of insurrection but was acquitted by the Senate by a vote of 57–43, 10 votes short of the 67 votes (twothirds of the Senate) required to convict him. Trump asserted that the election was stolen by means of rigged voting machines, electoral fraud and an international communist conspiracy. The attorney general, the Director of National Intelligence, and the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency – as well as some Trump campaign staff – dismissed these claims. Some state and federal judges, election officials, and state governors also determined that the claims were baseless.^[11][12]

Delay certification for valid reasons[edit | edit source]

Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and several Republican lawmakers from the House Freedom Caucus, sought to delay certification until a thorough investigation of the vote count was performed. At the state level they asked state legislatures to delay the electoral vote certification at the Capitol.^[13] At the national level they asked Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election results until an investigation of the vote count was performed. Consequently, hundreds of elected Republicans, including members of Congress and governors refused to acknowledge that the vote was completed.

Trump's legal team sought a path to bring a case before the Supreme Court, but none of the 63 lawsuits they filed were successful.^{[14][15][16][17]}

They especially pinned their hopes on Texas v. Pennsylvania, but on December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear that case.^[18] While some media journalists claimed that Trump reportedly considered multiple ways to remain in power, including military intervention, seizing voting machines, and another appeal to the Supreme Court, none of those speculated attempts occurred.^[19][20][21]

House Select Committee on January 6 attack[edit | edit source]

In June 2022, the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack said it had enough evidence to recommend that the Department of Justice indict Trump,^[22] and on December 19, the committee formally made the criminal referral to the Justice Department.^[23] On August 1, 2023, Trump was indicted by a D.C. grand jury for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights;^[24] he pleaded not guilty to all four charges.^[25] On August 14, Trump and 18 codefendants, including lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Jeffrey Clark and Kenneth Chesebro, and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, [[Prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia|were indicted]] in Fulton County, Georgia for their efforts to overturn the election results in that state.^[26][27] No convictions were returned for any of those indictments. (Lawfare)

Georgia 2020 election[edit | edit source]

In May 2024, the Georgia Secretary of State's office stated that they could not ascertain the exact number of invalid ballots that were counted in the certified outcome of the 2020 election. Biden narrowly won over Trump by approximately 12,000 votes. There were over 140+ violations of election laws and rules reported by the State Election Board. A complaint filed by two Georgia residents reported 17,000 missing ballot images from Fulton County.^[28] Officials from the State noted that there were 3,075 instances of duplicate ballot images. However, they could not determine how many of them were included in the recount's tabulation. The legal case focuses on the differences observed between the first recount figures in November 2020 and the revised numbers published the following day by Fulton County.^[28] In September 2024 in Leelanau County, MI, B. Weisner Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States states: "It has often been repeated there is "no evidence" of fraud in the 2020 Election. In actuality, there is no evidence Joe Biden won."^[29] Ongoing investigations in swing states have since brought to light hundreds of thousands of altered and unlawfully cast votes.

References[edit | edit source]