Trump’s 7-Point Plan: Analyzing Its Viability and Legal Implications

Recently, the political discourse has been ablaze with the revelation of a 7-point plan purportedly devised to reinstate Donald Trump as President. Various reactions have been thus far, ranging from critique to outright dismissal. Let’s explore this plan in detail and discuss its practicality and the legal ramifications it carries.

Introduction and Initial Reactions

The 7-point plan, despite its ambitious and multifaceted approach, has garnered mixed evaluations from the public and critics. Like the Curate's egg, it is 'good in parts,' but there isn't enough that aligns with Trump's perceived commitment to its implementation.

‘Just revealed’ at CPAC in the summer of 2021, the plan seems more a testament to obsession than a plausible strategy for re-election.

Why the Plan is Pointless

One of the primary criticisms is that the plan is simply unnecessary. As highlighted, there are two straightforward steps to re-elect President Trump:

These two steps are often the foundation of any successful election campaign. The 7-point plan, on the other hand, is viewed as overly complex and less effective.

I don’t care if the plan has a thousand points, it's still pointless!

Furthermore, the sheer number of points and the chaotic nature of the plan make it appear more like a rambling stream of consciousness than a coherent strategy. It's been pointed out multiple times that the plan is more about creating controversy and less about implementation.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

The 7-point plan doesn't merely face criticism for being impractical; it also raises serious legal and ethical red flags. A reasonable definition of a 'plan' includes a 'detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.' When evaluated under this criterion, the 7-point plan does not pass the test of being reasonable, realistic, or legal.

Central to the plan is the suggestion of a coordinated effort to 'fix' the election system. This brings the plan into legal jeopardy. Proponents of the plan would need to discuss it with the specific intent to carry it out, which, as experts argue, falls under the category of conspiracy to commit a felony. The mere act of discussing such a plan with intent is illegal.

Therefore, if you get a group of people together to discuss how to implement an illegal plan like this, that is called a conspiracy to commit a felony. You don’t have to do it. You don’t have to succeed. All you have to do is talk about it with the intent to do it.

An historical precedent exists for such accusations, as the Jan. 6 Committee has thoroughly documented many of the discussions and plans associated with the 2021 Capitol riot and other illegal activities that emerged from the support base of then-President Trump.

Conclusion

The 7-point plan, as proposed, is more of a political spectacle than a realistic path to regaining the presidential office. It lacks practicality and is laden with legal complications. Whether it turns out as effective as Trump's earlier election plans, such as those for 2018, 2020, and 2022, remains to be seen. However, the legal ramifications of discussing and implementing such a plan are significant and should be reconsidered by those who support it.

It is, at best, an ideological exercise and at worst, a dangerous legal minefield. It's time to consider a more pragmatic and ethical approach to political discourse and activism.