The whole point of starting an insurrection, sending the vote back to the states, and using alternate slate of electors was this was something that is so far outside the reach of normal courts that it would have stalled the process enough to possibly grant him emergency powers, declaring himself as president.

Trump doesn't need go full militant to end democracy. He could literally just cause enough bullshit in the process to where the two choices are either let things continue as he wants them two, or mass civil unrest and economic shutdown, and most people don't have a sense of nationalism to pick the latter. So US dies a death by 1000 cuts.

The only hope is that there are more people like Pence on the Republican side that when duty calls, they do the right thing.

> But they didn't end democracy because they couldn't, because our Federal government has a system of checks and balances that limit the power of the president.

Checks like Congress, a majority of which is terrified to stand up to him even after an attempted coup and comically bad cabinet appointments?

Or the courts, many of whose judges he appointed and shamelessly render verdicts (often on his behalf) without recusing themselves over conflicts of interest?

Or the executive branch, of which he is the head, and can cycle department heads like an episode of The Apprentice?

> He was president once, and was not able to pull off a successful insurrection, or murder any political opponents

The US passed an entire amendment to its constitution to prevent insurrectionists from repeated attempts to take over. The fact that he attempted to do so is already treason. One doesn't have to succeed to be disqualified. Otherwise what's the point of the amendment? Just keep trying until you succeed.

But you would agree that making the argument that it's fine for you to assassinate your political opponents would be a flashing red flag that person does not believe in the the ideals of democracy. I mean, generally someone who agrees with democracy would not argue, even for hypothetical purposes, that the highest power in the land reserves the right to murder with impunity people they don't like for personal political gain.

And so if someone does make that argument in front of the highest court in the land with the intent to avoid accountability for inciting an insurrection, as Trump did, maybe that person would be a bad person to give immunity from criminal liability because of their outlook on the scope of their own power.

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump said. He added: “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-suggests-hell-us...

Trump argued in front of the Supreme Court that his notion of presidential immunity covers the right for the president to use Seal Team Six to assassinate his political rivals:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-t...