Thread by @SethAbramson

I raise Trump's likely refusal to concede if he loses in November—a future predicted by everyone who knows him—because every Republican, in and out of DC, must decide *now* what they'll say publicly when it happens. (It'll begin with a lawsuit, then move to challenging electors.)

PS/ It's important to understand that Trump *won't* stage a coup. He knows that won't work. He'll claim votes were fraudulent; initiate an "investigation" using GOP resources; file a lawsuit; convince GOP pols to contest one or more states' electors; then call for a new election.

PS2/ My point: don't play the game of laughing at those who think Trump won't concede in November because you've fancifully concocted a movie-like version of what you *think* they're fearing he'll do. No—our fears are quite banal, esoteric, foreseeable, and supported by evidence.

PS3/ His plan, step-by-step, will be to 1⃣ delegitimize the election via GOP surrogates; 2⃣ file a lawsuit to create the appearance of "legitimate" doubt; 3⃣ recruit sycophants to challenge a state's slate of electors (that's where the real action is); 4⃣ call for a new election.

PS4/ He has another ace up his sleeve. He has more state-actor allies than he did in 2016—including some who hate him but want him to win because he's predictably corrupt—so if it looks like he'll lose, a major interference attempt (even if failed) can cast the result into doubt.

PS5/ Nations whose governments want Trump to win for their own reasons—in each case contrary to US interests—and who have the means to interfere in our elections include Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, China and North Korea. There are so many ways for them to do Trump a solid.

PS6/ Nations whose governments might seek out low-tech ways to delegitimize our elections—which have been *deliberately left open to attack by DC Republicans*—include Hungary, Egypt, Turkey, Venezuela, Libya, Sudan, the Czech Republic, and others.

And no one's minding the store.

PS7/ So *please* don't fantasize about Trump being frog-marched from the White House—that's not how this will go down if it happens. If it happens, it will be a months-long process geared singularly toward postponing the inauguration of the new POTUS and demanding a new election.

PS8/ Needless to say, at this point Trump is the favorite to win—so this scenario may never come to pass. But the more Trump continues to be favored, the more it aids his arguments (by creating expectations) in the event that he *loses*. America has never seen a threat like this.

PS9/ The danger is smart folks like @VanJones68 going on shows like @RealTimers (@billmaher) and pretending Trump refusing to leave would involve military action. {facepalm} No. That's a way of making the fear some of us have seem ridiculous *and* misunderstanding how this works.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher PS10/ Want to know how Trump could destroy our democracy this November—sans military? THE SAME WAY IT'S BEING DESTROYED NOW:

1⃣ Unscrupulous lawyers.
2⃣ Institutions paralyzed by novel situations.
3⃣ A pliant media—and an aiding/abetting far-right media.
4⃣ Corrupt politicians.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher PS11/ SCOTUS can take a while to hear a case. So Trump can time things right to get his case before a radical, unqualified, Trump-selected lower-court judge for an injunction at the right moment—when Congress is supposed to certify electors. Then the whole schedule's thrown off.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher PS12/ None of this involves the military. All it requires is unscrupulous, borderline-criminal lawyers—Trump has those already—a criminal AG (got it), 10 to 15 corrupt House/Senate GOP members (got it), hard-to-move institutions (got it), and far-right propaganda organs (got it).

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher PS13/ *All that* can be augmented by foreign nationals hacking the election (*even successfully*) to sow doubt; a Trump-manufactured foreign-policy crisis that seems to militate for moving slowly and deliberately pre-inauguration; a GOP media capable of moving the Overton Window.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher PS14/ So when @VanJones68 tells @billmaher that "generals would have to be corrupt" to let Trump stay on—which, again, he would do by *calling for a new election*, not declaring himself king—it's infuriating. Like Van, I don't think our military is disloyal. That's not the issue.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher PS15/ Look at the pattern that's already been set: Trump is destroying rule of law without a single overtly hostile action by police or military assets. He's doing it in plain daylight with corrupt lawyers and politicians and a system that *is too slow to react to novel threats*.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher PS16/ Today @JoyAnnReid had a federal lawyer on—I missed his name—who was practically *shouting* the alarm about the collapse of rule of law, and he was saying that *even the fact that honorable federal employees are resigning rather than becoming whistleblowers* is a *bad* sign.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid PS17/ In a healthy legal system, prosecutors who see corruption don't resign—they become whistleblowers. Institutions like the FBI, CIA or NSA don't hunker down to make sure the White House doesn't hurt them—they issue damning reports. None of that's happening, though—it's scary.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid PS18/ People wonder how democracy dies. Answer: like *this*. *Exactly* what's happening now. *This is how it happens*. There's *not* some bullshit B-movie version of this involving tanks in the streets and police becoming vigilante protectors of a neo-fascist regime. It's *this*.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid PS19/ Turn on the TV, read a paper, guess who's sounding this alarm more than anyone else: *attorneys*. Attorneys just like me. We've taken an Oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, and we're *telling you* that we're *paying attention* and it's *happening now.*

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid PS20/ We all think we'll know what to do if it happens. We'll protest! What the hell will we protest? A lawsuit Trump files? A BS GOP probe of "suspicious" ballots? A foreign intrusion into our election that *actually happened* but is merely intended to delegitimize real results?

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid PS21/ OK, Seth, you say, so how do *you* think you save a democracy on its last breath? The answer: you probably *can't*. You have to save it *before it's on its last legs*. You have to *use* institutions *before* they collapse, find heroes in the system *before* they all resign.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid PS22/ In other words... the fight to save our democracy is happening *now*. That is, what Bill Barr is doing—right now—*is* dismantling our democracy. And if you doubt me, again, listen to what the attorneys—guardians of the rule of law—are saying. They're saying what I'm saying.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid PS23/ So what does that mean? Well—many things. For instance, I've taught undergrad journalism courses in which students said—unanimously—they don't watch the TV or read papers for the news. I bet they would if tanks were in the streets, but that won't happen—*this* is happening.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid PS24/ My point is that you should be following the news—and should be getting non-newsreaders to follow the news—as avidly *right now* as they would be if tanks were in the streets (Van's "if the generals were corrupt"), because *that won't happen*. That's *not* how this happens.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid PS25/ Trump/Barr have created sufficient fear, corrupt "oversight," confusion, and deviation from convention that Trump and his circle are effectively above the law. Trump has pliant people in politics, media, and law willing to do *anything* for him. *That's* how it starts. /end

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid NOTE/ In tweet "PS13," the parenthetical should read "even unsuccessfully," not "even successfully."

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid NOTE2/ Conservatives are up in arms about this thread. Yet the one thing you'll hear from *none* of them: "If Trump loses, he needs to concede immediately." Why? Because they—like Trump—*say* that they believe the election won't be fair... and who'd concede an *unfair election*?

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid NOTE3/ Normally, both parties would say whoever loses in 2020 must concede. Dems have reason to fear pro-Trump actors abroad will try to pervert this election, as the last; pro-Trump *voters* can have no such fear. They still won't say now Trump should honor the election results.

@VanJones68 @RealTimers @billmaher @JoyAnnReid NOTE4/ The reaction to this thread underscores its point: Trump will have nearly all his voters on his side whatever he says about the election once it's over. Evidence? Immaterial. If he needs half the nation and some media to support him "challenging" the result, he'll have it.