I like this Atlantic article about the level of threat from the R’s who voted to overturn the election:
Unlike the insurrectionists, they were polite and proper about it. But the danger they pose to our democracy is much greater than that posed by the members of the mob, who can be identified and caught, and who will face serious legal consequences for their acts. Donald Trump’s ignominious departure from office—whether he is impeached and removed, resigns, or simply sulks away in disrepute—will leave us to solve the problem of the politicians who worked hard to convince millions that the election had been stolen, and then voted to steal it themselves.
The Republicans who backed Trump’s effort to overturn the election may have known that it didn’t have a high chance of success, but that doesn’t change the nature of the attempt, especially given their lack of remorse or apology. Unless they are convinced that it was a mistake—unless they pay such a high political price for it that neither they nor anyone else thinks of trying again—they are likely to seize the next available opportunity to do the same. If a future election comes down to one state instead of three, if a future presidential candidate uses lawsuits and coercion more competently, or if a few election officials succumb to threats more easily, they’ll be in the game.
A line must be drawn. The increasing entrenchment of minority rule and democratic backsliding in almost every level of government was terrible enough, but now we’ve even moved past that. Throwing out an election isn’t like disagreeing on tax policy or stimulus checks. It’s not something to move on from or forget. If no line is drawn, the attempt will surely be repeated, quite likely without the mob, by the polite legislators in suits and ties insisting that they want fair elections as they vote to gut what remains of our democracy. If anything, the unruly mob on January 6 may have made it a bit harder for them, by exposing the nature of the whole attempt.
“You can play that for the D.A. in court, I don’t care. If you ever jeopardize me, from being with my family, you will absolutely meet your mother f------ maker, and I will be the one to arrange the meeting,” Stoll is accused of saying in a reply, according to prosecutors.
Thanks for the link. I don’t get the viewpoints of folks like this, even from a self-serving perspective. Have their interactions with “businessmen” been all wine and roses? Why do folks who mainly work in blue collar jobs, who lost those jobs when businessmen moved the operations for more profit (which for the purposes of this discussion, isn’t per se evil) have such hero worship for businessmen?