Experts throw cold water on Trump's threat to use martial law

On Thursday, The Washington Postexamined several ways that supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump have suggested he could seize control of the government to stay in power indefinitely — and quoted experts explaining why none of them would work.

"This is really dangerous stuff to start playing with," said Carnegie Endowment for National Peace national security expert Rachel Kleinfeld. "You cannot normalize extrajudicial action outside the rule of law and believe democracy will hold. Democracies are fragile, even ours."

Declaring martial law, which would involve sending in the military, would be impossible. "There's absolutely no legal or political precedent for it," wrote Amber Phillips. "Trump would also need military buy-in, and military leaders have said they're not interested in entertaining any of these ideas. Experts were heartened that military leaders expressed regret for participating in a clearing of peaceful protesters outside the White House this summer so the president could pose for a photo he used for political purposes." And above all, it wouldn't actually change the result of the election.

A similar but legally distinct option, invoking the Insurrection Act, is also impossible because the law strictly limits it to national emergencies, which does not include losing an election. The move "would almost certainly face legal challenges and political blowback," noted Phillips, and longtime GOP strategist Karl Rove called it "an idiotic idea."

Some Trump supporters also want him to seize voting machines — but this would be against the law without states' permission, and it wouldn't do anything because the voter fraud claims of Trump's campaign have already been disproven. And even if the president were to appoint right-wing activist lawyer Sidney Powell special counsel to investigate the vote, as he has floated, "a Biden Justice Department could just silo her and give her zero resources."

The only real option Trump has, wrote Phillips, is to ask Republicans in Congress to contest the election results in January. And even this wouldn't do anything, because the challenge is baseless and would lack the votes.

"So all of this talk about possible actions is just that: talk," concluded Phillips. "And Trump will probably continue to talk, and tweet, about the election up to noon on Jan. 20, at which point he will be the former president."

You can read more here.