两周后1月6日起义，唐纳德·特朗普走出白宫，乔·拜登成为美国第46任总统。特朗普曾试图利用总统的全部权力和他作为共和党领袖的地位继续掌权，但他失败了。民主成功了。2021年1月20日中午，乔·拜登如期顺利就任总统。

但这真是千钧一发。特朗普及其追随者试图推翻2020年选举结果的努力——多维度的努力，袭击国会大厦只是其中一个因素——危险地接近成功。

塔索斯·卡托波迪斯/盖蒂图像公司

2021年1月6日，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在华盛顿特区的“停止偷窃”集会上发表讲话

例如，想想唐纳德·特朗普要求副总统迈克·彭斯采取行动，取消拜登1月6日的胜利。特朗普希望彭斯在当天的国会联席会议上利用他作为主持人的权力，在特朗普竞选过的州扔掉拜登的选举人票。从表面上看，赋予一个人推翻数百万美国人选票的权力的想法是荒谬的。除了少数为特朗普提供咨询的边缘律师之外，宪法学者一致认为，彭斯无权做特朗普要求的事情。

但如果彭斯听从了特朗普的命令呢?如果他在1月6日的联席会议上放下木槌，在特朗普争夺的州扔掉拜登的选举人票，会发生什么?如果他宣布特朗普是这些州的获胜者呢?

池/盖蒂图像

副总统迈克·彭斯主持国会联席会议，认证2020年萨尔瓦多...

J.受到保守派欢迎的前联邦上诉法官迈克尔·卢蒂格曾建议彭斯，如果他听从特朗普的命令，他将违反宪法，卢蒂格告诉美国广播公司新闻，如果彭斯试图这样做，他将“使国家陷入最高级别的宪法危机。”

虽然彭斯可能没有权力单方面拒绝选举人票，但不清楚谁会有权力否决他。一些人认为，这件事只能由最高法院解决，但不清楚大法官们是否会同意裁决这样一个案件，因为宪法可以说让国会决定自己的有争议的选举人票计票规则。

“这将使美国，特别是我们政府的三个部门，面临每个部门都认为似乎无法解决的宪法问题，”卢蒂格说。

卢蒂格认为，最高法院最终会处理这个问题，但是，他说，由于没有明确的宪法授权这样做，不确定大法官是否会同意解决争端。

“如果最高法院拒绝裁决这些问题，”卢蒂格告诉美国广播公司新闻，“国家和我们的民主将会陷入混乱，两者都不会很快恢复，实际上危及我们的国家安全。我们民主的合法性将永远受到质疑，它的光彩也永远无法恢复。”

即使最高法院决定干预，随着这一过程的进行，也会出现混乱和不确定性。

“在我们的国家及其政府机构能够解决这一切之前，美国将会非常混乱，”卢蒂格说。

这场宪法危机得以避免，是因为彭斯违抗了唐纳德·特朗普的命令。彭斯并不孤单。权力的和平过渡最终得以实现，很大程度上是因为彭斯和其他人拒绝参与唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)夺取权力、从美国选民中选出美国总统的努力。

许多蔑视特朗普的人是共和党人，并且一直是特朗普的忠实支持者。不难想象，其中一些人会同意特朗普的要求，并带来灾难性的后果。

佐治亚州的国务卿布拉德·拉芬斯佩格是共和党人，他支持特朗普并投票给他。特朗普要求他“找到”足够的选票来推翻他所在州的选举结果。他威胁他。拉芬斯珀格拒绝了。如果他没有呢?不能保证拉芬斯珀格会做正确的事情。

特朗普要求佐治亚州、宾夕法尼亚州和密歇根州州立法机构的共和党领导人推翻他们州的选举，向华盛顿发送特朗普的选举人票，而不是拜登的选举人票，拜登实际上赢得了他们的州。不是他们干的。如果他们试过了呢?

特朗普告诉他的国土安全部部长，他想让他在他输掉的州没收投票机——这一要求首先是特朗普提出的，后来是通过他的年轻执行者、总统人事办公室主任约翰尼·麦克恩特提出的。代理秘书查德·沃尔夫无权这么做，他拒绝了。但是如果他尝试过呢?

法官驳回了多项旨在推翻选举的诉讼，其中一些是特朗普提名的保守派共和党人。如果他们像特朗普明确希望的那样，支持特朗普的夺权并做出有利于他的裁决，那会怎么样?

特朗普直言不讳地要求最高法院——由于他提名的三名大法官，最高法院获得了明显的保守派多数——干预并挽救他的总统任期。最后他们一致拒绝了他的最后上诉。如果最高法院中的保守派多数派按照特朗普预期的方式行事会怎么样?

如果比尔·巴尔听从了总统的命令，调动了司法部的大量资源来推翻选举呢?巴尔似乎愿意让袖手旁观当总统，但最终，他不仅没有按照特朗普的要求去做，还公开宣称没有证据表明存在广泛的选民欺诈，这引起了特朗普的愤怒。如果巴尔没有反抗特朗普呢?

巴尔的继任者杰弗里·罗森也坚持己见。当特朗普试图解雇罗森时，近十几名司法部高级官员威胁要辞职。如果他们没有威胁辞职以示抗议，而是同意支持特朗普利用司法部推翻选举的计划呢?

这些人中没有一个人有权按照特朗普的要求行事，但不能保证如果他们试图按照他的要求行事，1月20日的有序权力交接会发生。

也可以说，这些人拒绝违法，拯救了我们的民主。他们中的一些人为做正确的事情付出了高昂的代价。例如，布拉德·拉芬斯佩格成了死亡威胁的目标，这种威胁在选举后的几个月里持续不断，不仅针对他，也针对他的家人。那些相信特朗普关于选举的谎言的人不知何故得到了拉芬斯珀格妻子的电话号码，并用威胁和色情信息轰炸她。

压力很大，但他保持专注，做法律要求他做的事情。拉芬斯珀格告诉我:“有时候，一个人必须站起来，被计算在内。“我会站起来被统计，因为我站在真理之上。”

系统保持不变。民主占了上风。但在这一过程中，有许多步骤让我们危险地接近彻底崩溃，一场真正的宪法危机。

最终，唐纳德·特朗普于1月20日和平离任，没有发生任何事件，主要是因为他在阻止乔·拜登成为总统的每一次尝试中都失败了，而且非常失败。

Beyond the riot, Jan. 6 was a dangerously close call. How Trump's plot nearly succeeded: ANALYSIS

Two weeks after theJan. 6 insurrection, Donald Trump walked out of the White House and Joe Biden became the 46th president of the United States. Trump had attempted to use the full power of the presidency and his position as the leader of the Republican Party to stay in power, but he failed. Democracy succeeded. Joe Biden became president, on schedule and without incident, at noon on Jan. 20, 2021.

But this was a close call. Attempts by Trump and his followers to overturn the results of the 2020 election -- multi-dimensional efforts of which the assault on the Capitol building was only one element -- came dangerously close to succeeding.

Consider, for example, Donald Trump’s demand that Vice President Mike Pence act to nullify Biden’s victory on Jan. 6. Trump wanted Pence to use his power as the presiding officer during the joint session of Congress that day to toss out Biden’s electoral votes in states Trump had contested. On its face, the idea of giving one person the power to overturn the votes of millions of Americans was absurd. And outside of a few fringe lawyers advising Trump, constitutional scholars agreed that Pence had no authority to do what Trump was demanding.

But what if Pence had followed Trump’s order? What would have happened if he had brought the gavel down during the joint session on Jan. 6 and thrown out Biden’s electoral votes in the states Trump had contested? What if he had declared Trump the winner of those states?

J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appellate judge popular among conservatives, had advised Pence he would be violating the Constitution if he followed Trump’s order, and Luttig tells ABC News that if Pence had attempted to do it, he would have "plunged the country into a constitutional crisis of the highest order."

While it may be clear that Pence did not have the authority to unilaterally reject electoral votes, it is unclear who would have had the authority to overrule him. Some have suggested the matter would simply have had to be resolved by the Supreme Court, but it is unclear the justices would have agreed to decide such a case because the Constitution arguably leaves it up to Congress to decide its own rules for counting contested electoral votes.

"It would have presented America, and the three branches of our government in particular, with what each branch would have viewed as seemingly irresolvable constitutional issues," Luttig said.

This undated photo provided by...

Luttig believes the Supreme Court would have ultimately taken up the issue, but, he says, with no explicit constitutional authority to do so, it’s not certain the justices would have agreed to resolve the dispute.

"Had the Supreme Court refused to decide these issues," Luttig told ABC News, "the country and our democracy would have spiraled into a chaos from which neither would have soon recovered, literally jeopardizing our national security. The legitimacy of our democracy would have been forever drawn into doubt and its luster could never have been restored."

And even if the Supreme Court had decided to intervene, there would have been chaos and uncertainty as the process played out.

"There would have been utter chaos in America until our country and its institutions of government could sort it all out," Luttig said.

This constitutional crisis was avoided because Pence defied Donald Trump’s order. Pence was not alone. The peaceful transition of power ultimately happened, in large part, because Pence and others refused to take part in Donald Trump’s effort to seize the power to choose the president of the United States from the American voters.

undefined

Many of those who defied Trump were Republicans and had been loyal Trump supporters. It’s not hard to imagine scenarios where some of them would have gone along with Trump’s demands, with disastrous consequences.

Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, was a Republican who endorsed Trump and voted for him. Trump demanded he "find" enough votes to overturn the results in his state. He threatened him. Raffensperger refused. What if he hadn’t? There was no guarantee Raffensperger would do the right thing.

Trump demanded Republican leaders of the state legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan overturn the elections in their states by sending to Washington Trump electoral votes instead of electoral votes for Biden, who actually won their states. They didn’t do it. What if they had tried?

Trump told his secretary of Homeland Security he wanted him to seize voting machines in states he lost -- a demand made first by Trump and later through his young enforcer, Johnny McEntee, director of the Presidential Personnel Office. Chad Wolf, the acting secretary, had no authority to do that and he refused. But what if he had tried?

Judges, some of them conservative Republicans Trump had nominated, rejected multiple lawsuits aimed at overturning the elections. What if they had gone along with Trump’s power grab and ruled in his favor as Trump clearly hoped they would?

Trump bluntly demanded that the Supreme Court -- with a clear conservative majority thanks to the three justices he nominated -- intervene and save his presidency. In the end they unanimously rejected his final appeal. What if the conservative majority in the Supreme Court acted the way Trump expected them to act?

What if Bill Barr had followed the president’s orders and mobilized the considerable resources of the Department of Justice to overturn the election? Barr had seemed willing to stand by the president, but in the end, he incurred Trump’s wrath by not only failing to do what Trump demanded, but by publicly declaring there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. What if Barr had not stood up to Trump?

Barr’s successor, Jeffrey Rosen, held the line, too. And when Trump tried to fire Rosen, nearly a dozen senior Justice Department officials threatened to resign. What if instead of threatening to resign in protest, they had agreed to go along with Trump's plans to use the Justice Department to overturn the election?

None of these people had the authority to do what Trump demanded, but there is no guarantee the orderly transfer of power on Jan. 20 would have happened if they had tried to do what he demanded.

It may also be said of these people that they saved our democracy by refusing to break the law. Some of them paid a steep price for doing the right thing. Brad Raffensperger, for example, became a target of death threats that continued months after the election and that were focused not just on him but also his family. People who believed Trump’s lies about the election somehow got Raffensperger’s wife’s phone number and bombarded her with threatening and pornographic messages.

The pressure was intense, but he stayed focused and did what the law required him to do. "Sometimes a person has to stand up and be counted," Raffensperger told me. "I’ll stand up and be counted because I stood on the truth."

The system held. Democracy prevailed. But there were many steps along the way where we were perilously close to a complete breakdown, a true constitutional crisis.

Ultimately, Donald Trump left office peacefully and without incident on Jan. 20 primarily because he had failed, and failed spectacularly, in each and every attempt he had made to prevent Joe Biden from becoming president.