> Once again, the military, who are sworn in to protect the constitution. Ah, so the military would have to remove the constitutionally appointed president fro

> Once again, the military, who are sworn in to protect the constitution. Ah, so the military would have to remove the constitutionally appointed president from office (remember, the constitution doesn't specify the VP can't be threatened, and Pence would have to weigh publicly stating that he was threatened against danger to his life and his family). The military would be going against their CoC. How healthy would that be for your democracy? What if they aren't courageous enough to do it? I know you'll probably say that the constitution doesn't have to explicitly say the VP can't be threatened - remember that the only reason for this whole mess is that the constitution doesn't explicitly say the VP has to count the real electors. You can't read things into the constitution you're not 100% sure the stacked supreme court would also read. > This would only work if Trump had the backing of the military in order to prevent them from acting or enforcing the law. No, he doesn't need backing, he only needs them not to explicitly back his opponents. for democracy? > Maybe because he is a wreckless fool. That does not mean it was an insurrection. So Trump tried everything in his power to overturn the election, and the Republican party tried everything to overturn the election, but it could have never worked and they were simply fools. It did almost work if one individual had decided differently, but it could have never worked. Am I understanding this correctly?