>>More frightening is for me that this is half of what brought a certain Austrian into power over here not even a century ago. I had always dismissed discussion about a coup / civil war in the states before, and the things happening early January were ugly, but not IMO not really a danger (yet). More like Munich Putsch attempt in the twenties than Machtergreifung in the 30ies.

It's worth recalling that not so long ago, 300 were arrested after they invaded the Senate buildings to protest a Supreme Court nominee. Another 164 were arrested trying to break into the Supreme Court when he was sworn in, while Pence was threatened by another mob as he tried to leave the Senate. Some of those now rearing back in horror, were very pleased about these earlier "insurrections" or even could be considered to have instigated them- so by today's standards, at least 3 current representatives ought to be charged for inciting violence and insurrection.

While this did not occur at the time and certainly won't under current government, precedent is set and GOP members are already warning they'll be doing exactly the same when control of the House reverts, as it will sooner or later.

This is a great argument for draining the swamp if the whole rabble is more interested in political jousting and/or backhander enrichment (unnatural reward for relatives or inflated speaking fees/book downpayments appear to be current favorites) than in improving the lot of the citizenry.

>>Certainly some votes were falsified (probable, as lots of people in small groups were involved), but there has been no clear evidence shown to be anywhere close to numbers affecting the outcome even in battleground states.

The 10th rule of the House of God: "If you don't take a temperature, you can't find a fever."

A more neutral media might ask how hard would it be for somebody who cares about national unity to perform a state examination of (say) 5000 votes. Let the complainant select sources and draw votes from a proverbial hat, then check validity. Unless the % of irregularity in this sample could have delivered a different result, now you can truthfully say there's no evidence that the election was affected by (whatever) and it's reasonable to go ahead and certify. Refusing to do this and then pretending the resulting lack of evidence disproves the claim, seems inflammatory. JMHO.

FWIW, this is not the first time somebody has questioned US voting outcomes. Democrats did so energetically last time both directly and via Green party proxies, and again this time in at least one state. The mistake Trumpists made was not to file suit as soon as they perceived unconstitutional or anti-democratic antics. Once the election was over it was too late to protest conduct they'd known about well in advance, as the courts told them repeatedly.

>>But Trump is in trouble for deaths on January 6th, of which only the guy doing his duty is to mourn IMO.

Not that it makes any difference to his grieving family, but latest medical examiner report apparently finds no evidence of blunt trauma on that poor fellow doing his duty. I also feel sorry for the unarmed protestor shot in the chest/neck at point blank range, and for the officers directly behind her at the time who tried to save her and must be traumatized by her death. The person who fired the shot probably deserves our sympathy too.