![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Trump reportedly wanted to join the rioters
[edit]I don't think we have sufficiently weighty RSs to add this to the article, but its in the media and I wanted to note them for followup later. Politico had this scoop,[1] which has spawned (of course) a cascade of other media stories based on the original Politco piece. Apparently a secret service agent, Trumps lead guy, gave closed (not public testimony). The committee hasn't disclosed it. So what we have here is he said..... he heard it from a friend.....that the other person told a bunch of people..... stuff (Politico heard it from a source that the agent testified to the panel.) This is why I don't think the report has enough WEIGHT to be added to the article. But it sure is interesting. Even as the violence was happening, Trump was tryhing to talk his detail into taking him down to the capitol. Instead they took him to the White House. At least, if the report is accurate.
Imagine if Secret Service had really taken Pence to Andrews and Trump got to the capitol.....
Anyway, the other part of this story that we might be able to use if the committee discloses the agent's testimony is commentary from Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who studies fascism and coups, and opined that "“If you’re having a coup and summoned everybody, and aim to be anointed as the head of a new illegitimate government, you have to be there,” I'm sure there's a weightier RS than HuffPost but for now, [2]
References
- ^ Swan, Betsy Woodruff. "Trump privately raised Jan. 6 Capitol appearance with Secret Service agent, select panel hears". POLITICO.
- ^ "Trump Botched His 'Coup' By Not Marching To Capitol Jan. 6, Says Expert On Autocrats". HuffPost. 12 June 2022.
Overturned before election is over ?
[edit]Almost everything detailed in the article took place before there was an official winner. So it wouldn't be overturning anything. 2600:6C40:0:204E:A133:B740:E9FE:5228 (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, the votes were in and had been counted, this was just the certification of that result. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is the complication with overturn. Many places have rules requiring a recount when the results are close. And allow one to request, and pay for, a recount when it is close, but not quite as close. Those are not attempts to overthrow. Asking the Secretary of State to find 11780 votes is an attempt. Note that a recount can, and often does, find more votes for the other side. Definitely attempts can happen before a winner is declared. Gah4 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Status of article, and its other related content
[edit]To my fellow American editors,
I believe that it is time to re-access the timeline of the attempts to overturn the 2020 Election because there is no reason to assume that they are still ongoing because of this simple fact: Joe Biden won the election and was sworn into office on January 20, 2021. Anything after that date should be considered aftermath (maybe a new article should made, if it hasn't been already). 2600:1702:5870:5930:EC7D:237C:DF8F:2282 (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I (and I am not Amercia) disagree, they have still all been attempts to overthrow it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven I can see your point of view because the multiple court cases and investigations are a result of the 2020 Election's outcome. However, I see all of that as just the political fallout from the election. I say let's wait and see what other editors have to say because I have to be honest here nothing from the last election should be ongoing except the current court cases against Donald Trump. 2600:1702:5870:5930:0:0:0:28 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Trump is not the only one still dealing with prosecution. There appears to be the possibility of a number of bad faith actors still at play.
- "Voting against certification was practically unheard-of in presidential elections until late in 2020, when Trump allies sought to block certification in Wayne County, Mich. — and until Jan. 6, 2021, when thousands of protesters sought to block Congress from certifying the election results.
- Since then, members of state and local boards have voted against certification more than 20 times across eight states, according to a list compiled by Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group that tracks antidemocratic trends in the United States. In most cases, the board members were outvoted or, when they weren’t, courts or officials forced them to certify the vote. (In one case, in Arizona, two board members who voted against certification have been criminally charged, pleading not guilty.)
- But Republicans and their allies are working to redefine the board members’ duties.
- The party says it has filed more than 90 lawsuits on election rules. Allied groups have filed dozens more. Both Democrats and Republicans described the legal blitz as the most lawsuits ever filed before an election.
- Many of these cases are continuing or caught up in the appeals process. Final decisions are unlikely to be reached until closer to the election. But the outcomes could affect election results."[1]
- DN (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- So your one single contribution to the entirety of Wikipedia is to try to shuffle the pertinent information currently contained in one contiguous and germane entry under the rug by putting the bulk of the information into other entries, knowing that people are less likely to click through and follow additional links,thus effectively hiding in plain sight Trump and his co-conspirators illegal, unethical, and unpatriotic actions. Sounds pretty undemocratic. 2601:1C0:6400:4980:E5DD:ED42:1BA7:47F (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rutenberg, Jim; Corasaniti, Nick (2024-07-13). "Unbowed by Jan. 6 Charges, Republicans Pursue Plans to Contest a Trump Defeat". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-31.
Well, that’s interesting to know that Psilotum nudum are known as whisk ferns. Psilotum nudum is the commoner species of the two. While the P. flaccidum is a rare species and is found in the tropical islands. Both the species are usually epiphytic in habit and grow upon tree ferns. These species may also be terrestrial and grow in humus or in the crevices of the rocks.
View the detailed Guide of Psilotum nudum: Detailed Study Of Psilotum Nudum (Whisk Fern), Classification, Anatomy, Reproduction