Analysis: The Swing States did not even come close to following the di...

5y ago Jan 3, 2021 at 11:24 PM

The Swing States did not even come close to following the dictates of their State Legislatures. These States “election laws” were made up by local judges & politicians, not by their Legislatures, & are therefore, before even getting to irregularities & fraud, UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-19. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

Elevated

Narcissistic State

Grandiose

Authorship

Uncertain

Intensity

65%

This post, published January 3, 2021—three days before the Capitol attack and the same day the Raffensperger call leaked—advances the "independent state legislature" theory to delegitimize election results. Psychologically, it functions as sophisticated rationalization: by framing the election as procedurally unconstitutional, Trump creates intellectual cover for extraordinary measures to overturn results without needing to prove fraud (which he explicitly brackets as secondary). The timing suggests deflection from the damaging Raffensperger recording. The post reflects antisocial features through its disregard for judicial review and democratic processes, combined with pathological denial of election legitimacy. Its danger lies not in violent rhetoric but in providing the constitutional framework that would be used to justify January 6 congressional objections and the rally itself. The claim that election laws were "made up" by judges is mostly false—the independent state legislature theory was later rejected by the Supreme Court in Moore v. Harper (2023). This post is part of an escalating pattern visible across same-day posts promoting the January 6 rally and decertification calls.

Authorship Analysis

Uncertain

Indicators:

ALL CAPS emphasis on UNCONSTITUTIONAL
scare quotes around 'election laws'
ampersand usage
evening posting time ~6:24 PM EST
more structured legal argument than typical Trump

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Grandiose State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Defeat (Election loss and Raffensperger call leak)

Sentiment

-0.60

Mildly Hypomanic

High-volume posting day with multiple election-related postsGrandiose certainty about constitutional interpretation

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

60%

Antisocial

70%

Paranoid

50%

Sadism

10%

Defense Mechanisms:

rationalizationprojectiondenial

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

60%

Parasocial Techniques:

constitutional authority appealframing self as defender of proper order

Danger Assessment

Elevated

Indicators:

Posted 3 days before January 6 rally
Provides constitutional justification framework for overturning election
Part of escalating pressure campaign including Raffensperger call
Delegitimizes electoral process across multiple states simultaneously

Gaslighting Detected:

Framing lawful election procedures as unconstitutional fabrications
Delegitimizing judicial review as 'making up' laws
Creating false narrative that elections operated outside legal authority

Reality Distortions:

Characterizing court-reviewed election procedures as unconstitutional
Implying state legislatures had no role in establishing election laws
Presenting fringe legal theory as settled constitutional fact

Fact Checks (2)

"Swing States did not follow dictates of their State Legislatures regarding election laws"

Mostly False

Courts in multiple states reviewed election procedures and largely found them consistent with state law. The 'independent state legislature' theory was later rejected by the Supreme Court in Moore v. Harper (2023). Most procedural changes were made by election officials acting under existing statutory authority or by courts interpreting existing statutes.

"Election laws were made up by local judges and politicians, not legislatures"

Mostly False

Election procedures were established by state legislatures. Some were modified by courts or executive officials during COVID, but within frameworks of existing legislative authority. Over 60 court cases found no basis for overturning results.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Psychological Analysis: Post x_1345798202650460200

Context

Posted January 3, 2021 at 6:24 PM EST (Trump at Mar-a-Lago or White House). This is the same day the Raffensperger call audio leaked. The post advances the legal theory that state election procedures were unconstitutional because they weren't set by legislatures—a key argument in the broader effort to decertify results before January 6.

Authorship

The post reads as semi-polished—structured legal argument with quotation marks around "election laws" (scare quotes, a Trump signature), ALL CAPS for "UNCONSTITUTIONAL," and the ampersand shorthand. The legal framing is more structured than typical Trump stream-of-consciousness but the rhetorical punch and scare quotes suggest authentic Trump, possibly with legal coaching on the argument structure. Evening timing is consistent with authentic posting.

Psychological State

This post functions as part of a coordinated pressure campaign three days before January 6. The Raffensperger call leaked the same day, making this post partially a deflection—redirecting attention from his recorded pressure campaign to a constitutional argument. The legalistic framing serves as rationalization for the broader effort to overturn election results.

Rhetorical Analysis

The argument structure is notable: it preemptively dismisses the need to prove fraud by asserting a procedural constitutional violation ("before even getting to irregularities & fraud"). This is a sophisticated rhetorical move—establishing that even without fraud, the results are illegitimate. The scare quotes around "election laws" delegitimize the entire electoral framework.

Danger Assessment

Three days before January 6, this post contributes to the epistemic framework justifying extraordinary action to overturn results. By framing the election as constitutionally void, it provides intellectual cover for the rally and congressional objections planned for January 6.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"Swing States did not follow dictates of their State Legislatures regarding election laws"	Mostly False	Courts in multiple states reviewed election procedures and largely found them consistent with state law. The 'independent state legislature' theory was later rejected by the Supreme Court in Moore v. Harper (2023). Most procedural changes were made by election officials acting under existing statutory authority or by courts interpreting existing statutes.
"Election laws were made up by local judges and politicians, not legislatures"	Mostly False	Election procedures were established by state legislatures. Some were modified by courts or executive officials during COVID, but within frameworks of existing legislative authority. Over 60 court cases found no basis for overturning results.

Overall Veracity: 20%