There is more than enough evidence that Trump was aiming for an excuse for martial law,

[Rustynaerduwell]

not a real attempt to turn the election results. It fits the means, motive and opportunity and provides for specific premeditation. This is a charge that is more explicit and specific than some general call to action in vain hope of succeeding. In fact, the riot itself would be the ends he was looking for. The idea of martial law was in his head from the beginning. The death of anyone in the line of succession- specific targets of the mob- would have been all that he needed to pull it off. Why not present the case that way?

[Frasier Balzov]

1. Too speculative. However, it does seem he was being counseled that way by some.

[Whiskeytide]

12. Bannon for one, I suspect. n/t

[Frasier Balzov]

16. And Flynn, according to recordings of the General from December. n/t

[exboyfil]

2. You have My Pillow guys notes

when he went to the White House the next day outlining this plan. Someone needs to squeeze him like one of his cheap pillows.

[Eyeball_Kid]

3. That, IMO, was one of the alternative plans that seemed to have a good chance of being realized.

Trump was positioning Pence to get assassinated SO HE COULD DECLARE MARTIAL LAW. Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer would have been decent substitutes, but any event that resulted in the killing of a small handful of members of Congress would have been sufficient means for a declaration. Trump's non-reaction to urgent requests for help is the tell.

[liberalmuse]

4. This is what I felt while watching the insurrection in real time.

I was so afraid Trump was going to declare Martial Law. I think the brave Capitol officers and especially Eugene Goodman who diverted the mob from the Senate Chambers likely prevented the deaths of elected officials that would have given Trump the excuse he was waiting for.

[regnaD kciN]

10. I was almost certain that would be the next step...

...but the $64,000 question would then be "why didn't he?"

I can come up with several possible alternatives:

1) First, of course, that he never planned to do it in the first place.

2) That he was, for the sake of appearance, counting on the groups of resistance activists who had organized to fight a coup to be out in the streets as promised, and that the clashes between them would give him his excuse to declare a national emergency because of "violent disorder from both sides." I was reading a few days ago about the behind-the-scenes efforts to fight an attempt to overturn the election, and how the organizers worked with progressive groups to tamp down any attempts of a "street presence" among such organizations on 1/6, with everyone agreeing to put off any protests unless such attempts appeared to be succeeding. This, in itself, may have foiled Trump's plans.

3) That he was actually counting on something more brazen: that the insurrectionists would manage to capture and/or kill enough Democratic Congresspersons to give Republicans a majority in both houses; whereupon the new "leadership" could proceed to reject the Electoral College vote and pick the president themselves before states could appoint replacements. By the time it became clear that the mob, while successfully breaking into the Capitol, wasn't going to be able to get to the Representatives and Senators, it was too late for a convincing case to declare martial law.

4) The one option that few people seem to be considering: that, maybe, Trump did decide to declare martial law, notified the Joint Chiefs to send the troops in, and was told by them they would refuse to obey such an order. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there was more going on at the White House than just Trump enjoying television coverage of the attack, but no one in Trump's inner circle is ever going to admit if such a scenario played out, and the military brass probably considers it a point of honor to never reveal such a thing.

Of course, we may never know, but you have to think there was some payoff in mind when they were planning and organizing this insurrection, and it wasn't just to have a large mob vandalize the Capitol building and then go home.

[liberalmuse]

11. #4 would be my guess.

But you are right that we may never know. I think there will be more investigations once we get our AG confirmed. Lindsay Graham has really been trying to stall that particular appointment. I wonder why?

[C_U_L8R]

5. He really screwed up, didn't he.

He won nothing.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Martial law is irrelevant, wouldn't affect the transfer of power- overturning the EC would. Nt

[Wednesdays]

7. Let's say anti-tRump protesters showed up in the tens of thousands

and all hell broke loose on January 6th. Hundreds dead. It isn't much of a stretch to suppose tRump would declare martial law and a "state of emergency" to suspend the Constitution. If enough blame was pinned on the anti-tRump people in the media, we'd still have him as president... likely for life.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. There is no mechanism to suspend the Constitution, not even using the Emergency Powers Act. Nt

[regnaD kciN]

8. It certainly would affect the transfer of power...

...if it was an "indefinite" state of emergency "for the foreseeable future"...which never came to an end. There is certainly precedent in other countries -- of course, that would assume the military would go along with it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Martial law doesn't suspend the Constitution, which stipulates presidential term ends January 20.

The Civil War didn’t stop the election of 1864, it just changed who could vote.

[misanthrope]

9. Irrelevant to you and others who aren't Trump

At that point, he was throwing everything at the wall. Anyone who had experienced him in action the last few years could see what he was doing and hoping for. He might be devious but he isn't that crafty.

[wiggs]

15. If Michael Beschloss thinks it's a possibilty, or at least a question, that's good enough

for me

Link to tweet