Volker Lied to Congress: What He Said

 

So, with that our of the way we have some answers.  Kurt Volker was the special envoy to Ukraine, a reputable diplomat with a long and distinguished career.  And anyone who still wishes to follow the first Trump impeachment should pay attention to Volker because he was in the thick of negotiating the public announcement that Trump wanted the Ukrainians to make.

Now, on to Volker's testimony, both during his closed door deposition and his public impeachment testimony.. By his account, he was retired from the State Department and agreed to serve as special envoy to Ukraine without pay because he wanted to support the country, which was being invaded by Russia.  He was aware of Giuliani communicating with Lutsenko and other Ukrainian officials.  The country was mired in corruption, but when Zelensky was elected president, Volker was much impressed and thought that Zelensky's position would be bolstered by a White House meeting. He attended the White House briefing on May 23, 2019 and tried to convince Trump that Zelensky was "the real deal," but Trump remained convinced that the country was corrupt and tried to take him (Trump) down, and that Zelensky was surrounded by "terrible people."  When Volker disagreed, Trump said, "Talk to Rudy."  Volker said he did not take that as a directive to talk to Rudy, but did take it to mean that Trump was getting misinformation from Giuliani, and that if he could only convince Giuliani that Zelensky was "the real deal," he could arrange a White House meeting, since he was convinced that Trump and Giuliani were motivated by a good-faith desire to fight corruption.  

Volker also attended a July 10, 2019 meeting in Washington DC between Ukrainian officials Yermak and Danyliuk and US national security officials, including John Bolton.  In his closed-door deposition, Volker said the meeting was disappointing because the Ukrainians focused on the finer details of military reform and did not present a bigger picture, but that nothing inappropriate happened.  In his public testimony (after a number of NSC officials said that clearly inappropriate discussions had taken place), Volker said that Gordon Sondland (Ambassador to the EU) had spoken to the Ukrainians at the end about corruption in a generic sense, and that the conversation struck everyone as inappropriate, but that nothing came of it.

Volker met in person with Giuliani just once, on July 19, 2019. (They had other communications that were presumably by phone or text).  During the conversation, Volker argued that Zelensky was the "real deal," and that Lutsenko was corrupt and not to be trusted.  Rather to Volker's surprise, Giuliani agreed and asked to be introduced to Andrei Yermak. Volker said that Giuliani raised the subjects of the 2016 election, Burisma, and the Bidens as topics for investigation.  Volker pushed back on the subject of Biden, saying he had never known Biden to be corrupt.  Giuliani dropped the subject, and Volker heard nothing further about Biden. Volker set up a three-way conversation on July 22, 2019 that he said was little more than a meet-and-greet.  He did not take part in the July 25, 2019 phone call that led to the impeachment and did not see the readout until it was publicly released.  However, he spoke to Zelensky the day after the call, and Zelensky seemed pleased with the outcome. 

During much of August, Volker worked with the Ukrainians on the statement to make a statement that met with Giuliani's requirements and would get a White House meeting.  There was much back-and-forth negotiation (verified by texts), starting out with a proposal simply to make a generic commitment to fight corruption, but moving toward a requirement to mention the 2016 election and Burisma.  There was no mention of Biden and Volker said that he saw nothing inappropriate about mentioning the election or Burisma, and did not see Burisma as referring to Biden.  Eventually, Volker and the Ukrainians decided that such a statement was not appropriate and decided against it.  Volker attributed this to the Ukrainians becoming increasingly confident that the US supported them, as evidenced by Bolton visiting the country on August 17, 2019.

Portions of Ukraine occupied by Russia

As for the military aid, Volker learned of the hold on July 18, 2019 from Acting Ambassador Taylor.  He dismissed the hold as no more than an ordinary bureaucratic snag and did not see it as significant in any way.  Even when the hold was revealed by Politico on August 29, 2019, Volker did not see the hold as anything more than an ordinary and routine bureaucratic snag and, indeed, maintained as much during his testimony to Congress.

The aid was released on September 11, 2019, after Congress opened an investigation.  The transcript of the phone call was released on September 25, 2019, while Zelensky was visiting the United Nations.  The Ukrainians sought to prevent the release and were furious when it happened.  Volker stepped down as special envoy on September 27, 2019.

Kurt Volker Lied to Congress, Background Information

 

Kurt Volker

"It came to him in a cocaine rush as he took the Langley exit that if Alrich had told Filipov about Hancock, only Fulfengian could have know that the photograph which Wagner had shown to Maximov on the jolting S-bahn was not the photographs of Kessler that Bradford had found in the dark, sinister house in the Schillerstrasse the day that Straub told Percival that the man on the bridge had not been Aksakov Paustovsky, which meant that it was not Kliest but Kruger that Cherensky met in . . . "  Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest, 1987

 I know that I am late to the game here.  The first Trump impeachment is ancient history by now, and by now even people who are still paying attention have lost interest in the little ripple to come out recently.  But earlier this month CNN published a recording of Rudy Giuliani's conversation with Ukrainian official Andrei Yermak, preparing him for the Trump phone call that formed the basis for the impeachment. Some semi-normal person asked, what is the revelation here and got the answer, nothing really, it is just a more graphic demonstration of what we already knew.  

I disagree.  I immediately spotted what Mother Jones was the first publication to point out.  What is significant is not what Giuliani and Yermak discussed, which tells us nothing new, but that Kurt Volker was present for the conversation, proving that he lied in his testimony to Congress.  Of course, the immediate response for any normie is to ask to questions, "Who is Kurt Volker?" and "Why should I care?"

So naturally I listened to the tape and read over his testimony to Congress (both his closed door deposition and his public impeachment testimony).  And I was going to post on it, but found that any attempt to discuss the matter ended up sounding a lot like the quote above.  So before beginning let me give a little background.

Dramatis personae

Donald Trump:  President of the United States, 2017-2021

Rudy Giuliani:  Former Mayor of New York City, acting as Trump's personal lawyer at all relevant times

Volodymyr Zelensky:  Ukrainian actor who played a President in a comedy.  Elected President of Ukraine in 2019 on a promise to clean up corruption in the government.

Yuri Lutsenko: Prosecutor General from the previous government, later fired.

Andrei Yermak: Zelensky's presidential aide for foreign policy.

Olkesandr Danyliuk: Ukrainian Secretary for National Security and Defense

John Bolton: US National Security Advisor and head of the National Security Council at all relevant times

Tim Morrision: Senior Director for Russia and Europe on the National Security Counsel.  Testified at the impeachment trial.

William ("Bill") Taylor: Acting Ambassador to Ukraine at all relevant times.  Testified at the impeachment trial.

Gordon Sondland: Ambassador to the European Union (EU) at all relevant times.  Testified at the impeachment trial.

Kurt Volker: Special Envoy to Ukraine at all relevant times.  Testified at impeachment trial.

Persons who were not immediate participants, but were important in the background

Joe Biden: Vice President of the US, 2009-2016. Considered the most likely Democratic candidate for President in 2020.

Petro Poroshenko: President of Ukraine, 2014-2019.  Pro-Western, but part of the old system holding over from Soviet times.

Viktor Shokin: Poroshenko's Prosecutor General until Biden pressured Poroshenko to remove him.  Replaced by Yuri Lutsenko.

Paul Manafort: Former advisor to the pro-Russian government in power in Ukraine before 2014.  Served as Donald Trump's campaign chairman for several months in 2016, forced out when he was revealed to be in the "black ledger" of payoffs by the pro-Russian government of Ukraine.

Alexandra Chalupa: Democratic operative in the 2016 election, accusing of having improperly coordinated between the Ukrainian embassy and the DNC.  Insufficient public evidence to prove or disprove the allegation.

Burisma: A Ukrainian oil and gas company mixed up in many corrupt dealings. In an attempt to clean up its image, it appointed international figures to the board of directors, including Joe Biden's son, Hunter.

Timeline of relevant events

Ukraine in the 2014 revolt

2014    Pro-Russian government in Ukraine overthrown. Pro-Western but corrupt Poroshenko becomes President, appoints Shokin as Prosecutor General. Russia invades.

2016    Biden, acting on general consensus of the US, EU, and IMF, demands the removal of Shokin as the condition to a loan guarantee.  Shokin replaced by Lutsenko.  (Neither one appears to have investigated Burisma).

2016    Donald Trump elected President of the US.

Uncertain    Giuliani begins travelling to Ukraine, looking for evidence.  Communicates with Lutsenko.

May  1 and 9, 2019, first accounts in the New York Times that Giuliani was pressuring Ukrainians to investigate Biden

May 20, 2019, Zelensky inaugurated.

May 23, 2019, White House meeting, with Trump, Volker and Sondland present.  Volker and Sondland are enthusiastic about Zelensky, but Trump calls Ukraine “terrible,” corrupt, and out to get him in the 2016 election.  He respondes to their enthusiasm with “talk to Rudy.”

July 10, 2019, Voker, Sondland and Zelensky aides Andrei Yermak and Oleksandr Danyliuk meet with National Security Counsel personnel, including NSA John Bolton. 

Ukraine, 2019

 July 18, 2019, US Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor learns that there is a hold on US military aid to Ukraine  and that it is a directive from Trump to the OMB (Office of Budget Management) but does not know why.  Informs Volker and Sondland of the hold.

July 19, 2019, in-person meeting between Volker and Giuliani, their only in-person meeting, Volker says.

July 22, 2019, three-way telephone conversation between Yermak, Giuliani, and Volker.

July 25, 2019, infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky, in which Trump asks for “a favor” – investigation of the 2016 election including finding “the server” and Biden.

July 26, 2019, Zelensky talks to Taylor and Volker, tells them all is well.

August 9-19, 2019, Volker and Sondland work with Yermak to draft an announcement of investigations.  Yermak resists.

August 27, 2019, Bolton visits Ukraine, talks to Ukrainian leaders.  Military aid not mentioned.

August 29, 2019, Politico reveals the hold on military aid.  Ukrainians ask Taylor for an explanation.

September 1, 2019, international leaders meet in Warsaw.  Trump planned to go, but stays home due to hurricane. Sondland takes Zelensky aside and says military aid as well as a meeting depend on announcing investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election.  Taylor is informed (via NSC) and is outraged.

September 7, 2019, Sondland talks to Trump.  Trump says there is no quid pro quo but says "Tell Zelensky to do the right thing."  

September 9, 2019, Congress starts investigating the hold on military aid.

September 11, 2019, hold on military aid released.  Taylor urges Ukrainian leaders not to announce investigations.

September 25, 2019.  Trump and Zelensky meet at United Nations.  Trump releases transcript of July, 25 call.  Ukrainians furious. 

September 27, 2019, Volker quits.

The telephone recording to come out recently was of the July 22 phone call.  However, it casts a different light on many events before and after.

 TO BE CONTINUED

Is Joe Manchin Really Doing Democrats a Favor?

Senator Joe Manchin

Reading this column has given me a thought that may seem heretical to many, but needs to be considered.  Is Joe Manchin really doing Democrats a favor in blocking their voting rights bill?  I know that may seem counter-intuitive, but consider.

One thing we should all realize by now is that political power it the US is extremely diffuse.  The number of separate and autonomous power structures in the US is immense.  Election of a president conveys limited power if the other party controls Congress.  Control of the federal government conveys limited power because so many matters are within the jurisdiction of states.  And state laws may meets with resistance by counties that are unwilling to enforce -- or a state's refusal to enact a law may be countered by a city enacting an ordinance.  And this is to say nothing of initiatives, school boards, elective judges, and so forth.  The recent COVID outbreak should drive home just how many competing power centers there are, all acting independently of one another.

And here is the thing,  Republicans understand this much better than Democrats do.  We accuse Republicans of being authoritarian because they are restricting access to the vote, gerrymandering, stripping power from Democratic governors and other statewide officials, making it easier to overturn elections, and otherwise seeking to lock in one-party rule.  And we are right.  Republicans are being authoritarian and undermining democracy.

But Republicans see us as authoritarian as well, and not completely without justification.  We take a notably top down approach to enacting reforms.  During the Obama presidency, we tended to put all our eggs in the presidential basket and assume that once we won the presidency, we would get what we wanted.  Republicans responded by mobilizing at all levels to counter him. With the Trump presidency, we have learned some lessons.  Certainly, we were able to retake control of the House in 2018 and (with an extraordinary mobilization) of the Senate in 2020.  We tried for other offices, as well, and failed.  But we are still putting all our eggs in the federal basket, assuming that if we can only pass the right legislation at the federal level, states will not find ways to circumvent it. The For the People Act is itself revealing.  Written in 2019, it addresses issues of the day -- making voting easier, resisting gerrymanders, and limiting the power of campaign contributions.  Written before the 2020 election and aftermath, it does nothing to address Republican attempt rig vote counters and make elections easier to overturn.  And doubtless no matter what Congress might manage to pass, states would find ways around it.  State governments are smaller than the federal government and therefore more agile. They can all try separate and independent vote suppression and rigging techniques and leave the federal government playing a game of whack-a-mole.

So in the light of all this, what can Democrats do?  I would say our only hope is to follow the example of Republicans and mobilize at all levels and fight Republican attempts to rig outcomes, state by state, county by county if necessary.  Consider the following:

• Voting rights lawyers are challenging Republican laws in multiple states 
• Democratic PAC's are launching a three-pronged drive to challenge Republican restrictive voting laws in court, inform voters of the restrictions, and fund voter protective organizations on the ground
  
• Protect Democracy is challenging the Cyber Ninjas "audit" in Arizona
  
• Democratic resistance and publicity have softened some of the worst measures in Georgia and (probably) Texas.

These measures are not adequate.  But then again, they are just getting started.  They are the beginning of a serious, decentralized counter-mobilization to fight Republican vote rigging at all levels.  And given the choice between this sort of decentralized, multi-pronged mobilization and all levels and relying on the federal government, I would take the non-federal approach any day.

The Vote Flow Charts

 

New category for my posts, "Can US Democracy be Saved?"  Needless the say, the fact that I am asking such a question suggests that I am NOT optimistic.  Probably a lot of posts to this label will be short and angry.  

Today I will start with the act of voting.  The Republican approach to an election and whether to recognize the outcome has become so complex, involving so many stages, that it really calls for a flow chart.  And, it should be added, since not all Republican agree on the proper procedure to follow, multiple flow charts.  So I prepared some.  Here we go.

The old model.

Once upon a time, long, long ago, the rule was simple and could be portrayed in the flow chart on the left.. If the Republican candidate got more votes, the Republican won.  If the Democratic candidate got more votes, the Democrat won.  This model applied at all levels of government, although due to gerrymanders, a minority of voters could choose a legislative majority.  

This model has not been in use at least since 2000, and possibly earlier.  

The recount model

Since 2000, and possibly earlier, recounts have become widely accepted when the vote is very close.  Details depend on the state, but in most states if the vote is closer that a certain number, recount is mandatory.  (I have used .5% as my numbers, although the total varies by the state.  The flow chart for this model is somewhat complex and messy, but it is symmetrical.  Each party has three paths to victory.  It can win by more than the recount threshold; it can win but less than the recount threshold and then prevail on a recount or (rarely) it can overturn the original result of the recount shows a change in who had the most votes.  

This is the model that was followed by both parties from 2000 to 2020.  It continues to be the accepted model for Democrats to this day.  Republicans who accept this model are invariably now ex-Republicans.  During the 2020 election, difference Republicans selected a wide variety of models as to where to draw the line in attempting to overturn a Democratic election victory.  Whether they have reached consensus on any particular model since the election remains to be seen.

The Republican Judge Model, probably accepted by Liz Cheney*

This model allows voting restrictions that make it harder for Democratic constituencies to vote, but requires Republicans to accept the results if the Democrat nonetheless wins. I was going to call this the Liz Cheney model, but that may or may not be accurate.  Liz Cheney has made clear that she condones voting restrictions and most emphatically does NOT condone violent insurrection. But there are various other places one can draw the line on attempting to overturn an election result, and Liz has not made clear where she draws that line.  So I have called it the Republican Judge Model.  Federal judges, many of them Republican appointees and even some Trump appointees, have generally let stand Republican voting restrictions, but unanimously made clear that they will not overturn the result of an election if the Democrat wins the recount.

The Mitch McConnell Institutional Model

This model allows a Republican who loses to file an unlimited number of lawsuits, regardless of merit, to overturn the results, but requires the Republican to accept the results if the lawsuits fail. I called this the Mitch McConnell Institutional model because Mitch McConnell was praised as an "institutionalist" for eventually publicly accepting the results and urging all Senate Republicans to do the same.  Properly speaking, though, this should not be called the McConnell model, since the trigger for McConnell accepting the results was not Trump's lawsuits failing, but the electoral college voting to certify.  Maybe I should call it the Jamie Raskin model since Raskin -- the House impeachment manager! -- acknowledge filing a large number of completely worthless lawsuits as legitimate.  

As with many of these other models, it is not clear how many Republicans still hold to it. In 2020 and the beginning of 2021, there were significant numbers of Republicans who said that if a lawsuit to overturn the election failed, the Republican must concede defeat.  It is not clear how many still agree.

The Tom Cotton Model

Here things are starting to get complicated because I am making my flow charts in institutional order while events actually unfolded in chronological order.  After lawsuits fail, I will treat the next attempt as pressuring vote counters to change the number of votes, even though these events took place at the same time.  I will call this the Tom Cotton model because Senator Tom Cotton, after sitting on the fence for a long time, finally came out and said that he would vote to confirm after hearing tapes of President Trump pressuring the Georgia Secretary of State to change the total.  Apparently that was a bridge too far for him.  As with many other steps in this flow chart, it is by no means clear whether that would still be a bridge to far for him today.  Across the country, many Republican legislatures are seeking to pass legislation making it easier for vote counters to change results.

The States Rights Model

The next step is asking state legislatures to appoint Republican electors.  Chronologically, it took place at the same time as lawsuits and attempts to pressure vote counters.  Institutionally, it comes after for two reasons.  First, all these other measures -- voter suppression, lawsuits to overturn elections, and tampering with vote counting -- can be done in any election to any office.  The Electoral College presents other opportunities to overturn the popular vote. One such opportunity is for the state legislature to choose its own set of electors. This is clearly constitutional.  It was the usual practice for choosing electors in the early days of our republic.  This method is barred by statute in all states.  The Arizona legislature proposed a law allowing the state legislature to choose electors, but the attempt was not successful.  Nor does there appear to be any widespread attempt to give state legislatures the power to override the popular vote.  However, if the Republicans are not successful in capturing the vote-counting apparatus in the 2022 election, there may be another push to enact such legislation.

The Deep State/William Barr Model

This approach also (presumably) applies only to presidential elections.  Chronologically, it took place after the Electoral College had voted and attempts to pressure states had become futile. It means using the instruments of the federal bureaucracy -- the deep state, if you will -- to overturn the results. Institutionally, it goes far beyond lawsuits, pressure on vote counters, or state legislatures choosing electors because it jettisons all pretense of legality and moves directly into the realm of raw power.  There was talk of using the military or Homeland Security to declare martial law, and to cancel and rerun the election in key swing states.  This was where William Barr drew the line.  He was willing to use the Department of Justice to conduct an investigation for fraud, but when he did not find any, he resigned rather than go any further.  Given that there is now a Democrat in charge of the federal bureaucracy, this one is off the table, at least for 2024.  Whether it will be revived next time a Republican is president and a Democrat wins remains to be seen.

The Hawley-Cruz Model

This one also applies to presidential elections.  After the Electoral College has voted, Congress meets and certifies the results.  Up until 2021, this was a mere formality, the result having be decided long before.  Select Democrats have objected in recent times, but always as a mere matter of form, and never with the intent of actually overturning the result.  This was the first time there was any serious question of overturning the result. Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz were the most prominent leaders of the refusal to certify, but did accept the results once the certification happened.  People on my side of the spectrum fear not only Republican vote counters refusing to certify a Democrat as winning, but a Republican Congress refusing to certify a Democrat in defiance of the Electoral College.  The best remedy anyone can come up with is the keep Congress from falling into Republican hands, but that can only be a short-term measure.  Sooner or later there will be a Republican majority.  Then what? 

The Insurrectionist Model

I listed this one a presidential only, but it really isn't.  Any time a Democrat wins at any level, Republicans now have the option of inciting a violent insurrection to overturn the results.  Republican office holders generally are not willing to endorse this option outright.  But none of them seem to want to reject it either.

The Arizona Model

It's a classic scene from horror movies.  Just when you think the monster is finally dead, it attacks again.  And even though a violent insurrection has failed and Joe Biden has been inaugurated, Republicans still haven't given up hope of overturning the election.  So what can they do?  Well, in Arizona the Republicans have hired Cyber Ninjas to audit the ballot.  Apparently the "audit" includes shining an ultraviolet light on ballots to see which ones have a water mark that all legitimate ballots supposedly had (they didn't).  It also involves searching ballots for bamboo contamination to see if they were smuggled in from China.  (No, really!)  As with so many other attempts to overturn the election, what was once shocking and scandalous has become normal.  Once, Arizona election officials urged an end to the recount on the grounds that it was making Arizona a laughing stock.  Now Republicans in all the swing states are wanting to imitate Arizona.  

We don't know what the "audit" in Arizona will show.  Presumably neither water marks, nor bamboo.  So will the Cyber Ninjas declare all ballots fraudulent because none of them have water marks?  Will they find some hitherto undisclosed reason to invalidate the election?  Or will their sloppy technique simply come up with a count so different from the official tally to allow critics to declare the outcome unknowable?  

The Michael Flynn Military Coup Model

While Republicans in swing states have endorsed the concept of having Cyber Ninjas examine the ballots for grounds to find the count invalid, they have never explained what will happen.  Donald Trump and Mike Lindell have apparently expressed confidence that the election will be invalidated.  Republican leaders have assured everyone that any serious attempt to overturn the result will lead Republicans to repudiate Trump.  Sort of like the violent insurrection was supposed to lead Republicans to repudiate Trump.  Nonetheless, the serious believe that the election will be overturned remains the province of a fringe.  

And what if the Cyber Ninjas fail to find grounds to overturn the election?  Mainstream Republicans will presumably move on to look for some other grounds.  But a handful of outliers, like Michael Flynn, are proposing a military coup or possible civil war.  In one way, they are being more honest than the bulk of Republican in saying that there is no possible way they would accept a Democratic President as legitimate.

Still, despite this gloom, I will offer one small ray of hope.  There have been four special elections in 2021. Two special elections were narrow victories for Democrats to represent Georgia in the Senate.  One was a sweeping landslide for a Republican to represent Texas in the House. And one was a comfortable margin for a Democrat to represent New Mexico in the House.

In all cases, the results went unchallenged.

______________________________________________

*Presumably Democrats will call for a recount if the Republican wins by a very narrow margin, but needless to say Republicans will not so so, so I have omitted that step in order to save space.

So Why Aren't Democrats Shouting from the Rooftops?

 

So why aren't Democrats screaming from the rooftops about Republican attempts to lock in a permanent monopoly on power?  Why are Democrats focusing on infrastructure bills or, at most, attempt to expand voting access?  As the clip comments, "Yes, there are more hurdles, but hurdles you can jump over.  Crooked umps is harder to deal with."  Why aren't Democrats sounding the alarm that Republicans want to forgo the whole tiresome process of finding a winning program -- or candidate -- altogether and just putting people in charge of counting the vote who will always certify Republican winners regardless of actual vote total?  This seems like, as our current occupant of the White House would say, a big fucking deal.  Why isn't it getting more attention?

I can only assume that Democrats believe that control of the voting apparatus, like most procedural issues, is just too much a matter of insider baseball to interest normal people, and that most people care more about infrastructure than governmental structure.  Scandals, like procedural issues, are generally seen as insider baseball that no normie cares about.  Certainly Trump's egregious violations of the Hatch Act (the law forbidding use of the federal government for election campaigns) were dismissed as something no one outside the Beltway cares about.

To which I can only say, the Republican Noise Machine knows how to make people care about procedural issues.  And scandals.  Make no mistake, if a Democratic President had employed federal resources in a campaign, the Republican Noise Machine would have made sure people cared.  One might think that a Secretary of State sending State Department e-mails on a private server would be the sort of insider baseball issue that no normie would care about, but somehow it managed to be the number one issue in the 2016 election.  

A large part of the secret here is message discipline. If everyone talks about the same subject at every opportunity, it ends up being something that people pay attention to.  Another part is making the message something short and simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker, and something with real moral resonance.  Something like, "Hillary Clinton is under FBI investigation."  

If "Republicans don't want your vote to count" isn't enough to get people's attention and fire up Democrats, this country clearly has no hope.

Can American Democracy be Saved?

 

We have reached the point where there is real question whether U.S. Democracy can be saved.  And worse yet, the conventional answer everywhere I see is no, it is too late.

Democrats are lazy and sluggish, basking in the glow of victory, confident that, since we have removed Trump from office, the country is safe.  Republicans furious, highly mobilized in all red and swing states, setting out to ensure that Democrats can never win another election. Among Republicans, assuring that the electoral mechanism if fully rigged is an all consuming passion at all levels of the party.  Among Democrats, it is a concern whispered about among a handful of insiders, but not yet reaching the general public.  Public talk is instead about infrastructure, child support credits and the like.  THE ISSUES ARE NOT THE ISSUE!  PRESERVATION OF DEMOCRACY IS!

Republicans are installing safeguards at multiple levels to guard against ever allowing a Democratic victory.  

First, and attracting most attention, are bills to restrict access to the vote, especially for minority voters who generally support Democrats.  Laws are being proposed and some passed to limit mail-in voting and early voting, to restrict drop boxes, shorten voting hours, limit voting drives, tighten voter ID requirements, increase voting roll purges, etc.  A predictable result of this would be long lines on election day, particularly in urban and minority communities which vote heavily Democratic.  But there is doubt as to how restrictions like these actually affect voter turnout.  In at least some cases, the perception of attempted suppression inspired minority voters to turn out at increased rates.  

In case these restrictions fail to deter enough Democrats from voting, other safeguards are being installed.  Voting officials are being subject to criminal penalties if they allow anyone greater access than the law allows, an none for denying voters lawful access.  The result will be to encourage a strong bias against access.  Other laws make it easier to challenge elections, and easier for courts to overturn the outcome.  

But most alarming are the attempts to change vote counting.  Up until now, vote counting has been ministerial.  County Clerks and Secretaries of State are partisan elected officials, but their role has been to count votes and certify the outcome, regardless of whether their side wins.  In Georgia, a Republican Secretary of State who certified Biden as the winner is facing a primary challenge.  In Michigan, the Republican on the election board who voted to certify Biden as winner is being removed.  In Arizona, the legislature is shifting the role in defending election integrity from the Democratic Secretary of State to the Republican Attorney General -- until then end of their current terms.  After the next election, Republicans will presumably switch that responsibility to a Republican office holder, regardless of the office.  Georgia and Arkansas have passed laws increasing power of the (partisan) legislature or election board in determining election results.  Candidates claiming vote fraud are running for Secretary of State in key swing states.  

The same article notes that Secretaries of State have limited power to overturn elections, and more power to create the perception of fraud:

[S]ecretaries of state often play ministerial roles in election certification and vote counting, with more direct oversight of the process falling to local county and city election clerks. That means that functional risk of electing pro-Trump election truthers as secretaries of state could be lower than many perceive.

 But this gives me no comfort.  All it means is that Republicans may have one more level of power to attack before they can guarantee a monopoly on power.  Suppose one or more Trumpist Secretaries of State try to overturn an election that a Democrat won, only to learn that the actual vote counting was cony by County Clerks and cannot be changed at the state level.  What is the obvious response by Republicans?  Why to run a bunch of Trumpist county clerks who will throw away (say) one-third of all Democratic votes in their counties.  Given the rural-urban split in this country, and given that counties are drawn up based on geography rather than population, it should be an easy matter for a large enough number of county clerks to rig the election to ensure that on Republicans can win.  And a Democratic Secretary of State would have great difficulty overriding them.