Suppose Widespread Starlink Election Fraud is Proven. What Happens Next?

A chilling hypothetical: running the scenarios that would ensue if widespread election fraud were proven

[Author’s Note: In Deeper Look’s recent ongoing series, I’ve been evaluating claims of election fraud in 2024—assessing the evidence and reviewing efforts by groups like Election Truth Alliance and Smart Elections to ensure integrity at the ballot box. Today, in response to several reader comments, let’s conduct a “war-game” exercise: what if, after all, Starlink-linked devices and GPS-enabled Tripp Lite hacks created an electronic back door that actually hacked the 2024 election and courts conclude “beyond a reasonable doubt” the election was stolen across the swing states? What legal and political remedies remain, and how might they play out under different power configurations in Washington? Short answer: It’s complicated. Long answer follows.]

When the Courts Say It’s Real: Decertification and Judicial Remedies

It’s true that federal district courts can no longer issue universal (nationwide) injunctions under the Supreme Court’s Trump v. USA decision (June 27, 2025) . But that ruling did not outlaw statewide injunctions or relief limited to the parties before the court. In practice:

1. State-Level Relief Is Still Available. A U.S. district judge sitting in Pennsylvania—even after Trump v. USA—can issue an injunction that applies only to Pennsylvania’s election officials or to the named plaintiffs. That judge can order Pennsylvania’s certification vacated and compel a recount under state law.

2. Appeal and Stay Process. The state (or federal government) would likely seek an immediate stay from the Third Circuit, arguing that the injunction exceeds the court’s equitable powers. But unless—and until—the Third Circuit grants a stay, the decertification or recount order remains in effect within Pennsylvania.

3. Multiple Cases, Multiple States. To cover every affected swing state, similarly situated plaintiffs in each state would bring parallel suits. Each federal judge could grant statewide relief, without ever purporting to bind courts or officials outside their jurisdiction.

4. Potential Supreme Court Review. If a circuit court narrows or stays such state-specific injunctions, parties could seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court—but only for that single state’s order. The Justices would weigh whether nationwide relief is necessary or whether the patchwork of state cases suffices to address the fraud.

In short, statewide decertification and recount orders remain fully within district courts’ authority post-Trump v. USA. The path to redress would run through separate suits in each state rather than a single universal injunction—and only if those orders are stayed or overturned on appeal would a compliance battle reach the Supreme Court.

Criminal Prosecution: From Election Fraud to Insurrection

On a separate legal track, once tampering is judicially confirmed, a web of federal and state criminal statutes springs into action:

1. Federal Election Fraud (52 U.S.C. § 20511). Anyone who “knowingly and willfully” tampers with voting equipment or vote counts faces up to five years in prison per violation .

2. Conspiracy Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371). A scheme to hack voting machines nationwide qualifies as a conspiracy, punishable by up to five years behind bars .

3. Rebellion or Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383). If the plot rises to the level of an attempt to overthrow or impede the lawful functions of government—whether via militia threats or coordinated violence—participants face up to ten years in prison and automatic disqualification from future office under the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause .

---

Special Counsel Appointment

The linchpin for marshaling these criminal remedies is a Special Counsel (sometimes called a “special prosecutor”) empowered to investigate and, if warranted, bring charges. Under 28 CFR § 600.1, the Attorney General—or, if recused, the Acting Attorney General—“will appoint a Special Counsel when … criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” A Special Counsel enjoys independence from ordinary chain-of-command pressures and can subpoena logs, interview co-conspirators, and pursue indictments

Who can appoint?

• Attorney General: The sole appointing authority under DOJ regulations.

• Acting Attorney General: Steps in if the AG is recused or unwilling.

Can anyone else?

• No parallel federal mechanism exists outside the DOJ; Independent Counsel statutes expired in 1999.

• Congress can pass new legislation to create an alternate appointment power, but none currently exists.

• At the state level, state attorneys general can appoint state-level special prosecutors, but they lack jurisdiction over federal election crimes.

Realistic chances under a Trump-aligned DOJ (Pam Bondi)?

• Low unless forced: Since taking office, AG Pam Bondi has used the DOJ as a political weapon, firing career prosecutors and directing a “weaponization working group” against Trump critics.

• Her public disparagement of former Special Counsel Jack Smith as a “rabid dog” suggests she’d resist appointing a new prosecutor to pursue Trump or his allies

• Congressional pressure: Bipartisan calls—such as Representative Dan Goldman’s public demand—can create political heat but Bondi retains final say unless Congress passes new law or compels compliance via oversight—and even then, enforcement tools are limited to contempt citations.

• Acting AG replacement: If Bondi is recused or removed through political turnover, an Acting AG sympathetic to impartial enforcement could step in—but under current leadership, that scenario seems unlikely.

In short, appointing a Special Counsel in the face of incontrovertible election-hacking proof would require either an Attorney General committed to the rule of law—or overwhelming public and congressional outrage that makes refusal politically untenable. Without that, the DOJ’s own guidelines (and the AG’s discretion) mean a Special Counsel appointment remains an uncertain linchpin in the post-proof architecture.

Impeachment, Removal, and Disqualification

Separate from the courts, the Constitution provides political mechanisms:

• Impeachment (House). Article I, Section 2 grants the House the sole power to impeach (simple majority)

• Senate Conviction (Senate). Article I, Section 3 requires a two-thirds vote to convict and remove (at least 67 senators)

• 14th Amendment Disqualification. Section 3 bars anyone who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office unless Congress later votes to remove that disability.

• 25th Amendment. If a sitting president defies court orders, Cabinet and Congress can declare him unfit for office.

Because removal demands a high bar—67 votes in the Senate—conviction hinges on substantial bipartisan defections anchored by unassailable evidence. (See “Constitutional Crisis Scenarios” below for more on how this would likely play out.)

Commander’s Gambit: Trump’s Potential Military Play

Imagine the unthinkable: after every court—state and federal—confirms that back-door exploits flipped the 2024 election, President Trump refuses to concede. Instead, invoking the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–253), he orders federalized National Guard units and select active-duty brigades to “protect the duly elected president” and maintain “law and order” in critical swing states . He directs deployments around capitol buildings, ballot-count centers, and courthouses, framing them as necessary to “thwart insurgent judges” and prevent “anarchy.” Simultaneously, he pressures Defense Secretary to issue gag orders on senior officers—threatening firings under the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act’s civilian-control provisions if they refuse .

Military Loyalty and the Bounds of Obedience

Under U.S. military law, active-duty troops are bound by Posse Comitatus (18 U.S.C. § 1385) to avoid domestic law enforcement roles absent explicit statutory permission—permission normally confined to the Insurrection Act itself . Yet if Trump pushes the envelope—ordering combat brigades to stand guard inside state legislatures or to arrest state officials executing decertification orders—mid-level commanders face a dire choice: obey a direct order or uphold constitutional limits. Historical precedent (e.g., the stand-down during the 1992 Los Angeles riots) suggests most senior officers err on the side of legality, pushing back quietly or requesting written clarifications through the chain of command . But Trump’s threat to replace non-compliant generals could fracture that reluctance, forcing junior officers to choose between career security and lawful restraint.

Counterforce: The Military’s Internal Checks

While the president is Commander-in-Chief, the Goldwater-Nichols Act vests operational command in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), who cannot lawfully obey an illegal order—even from the president—without risking a felony under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 92: failure to obey lawful order) . If Trump attempts to override federal courts by stationing troops at state capitols or by ordering mass arrests of judges, the CJCS and Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force could collectively refuse, citing the constitutional hierarchy and Posse Comitatus’s prohibition . That coordinated refusal would amount to a de facto military counterforce—not a coup, but an assertion of duty to the Constitution over loyalty to a commander issuing unlawful directives.

In parallel, state governors could mobilize their own National Guard under Title 32, refusing federal activation and even placing federalized (Title 10) units under “dual-status” commands that insulate them from presidential micromanagement . Ultimately, the most credible check on Trump’s military gambit lies within the armed forces themselves: an officer corps bound by oath to defend the Constitution, supported by legal advisers and a civilian Pentagon leadership unwilling to breach the civil-military contract.

When courts declare the election stolen but the presidency resists, the showdown shifts from ballots to barracks. The president can attempt to wield troops, but the combined weight of military law, senior-officer integrity, and the dual-status Guard model creates a bulwark against unconstitutional deployments—ensuring that even in the darkest hour, the armed services remain the guardians of constitutional order, not partisan instruments.

Constitutional Crisis Scenarios

Even with incontrovertible proof, political dynamics shape outcomes. Let’s walk through three power configurations:

Scenario A: Unified Republican Government & Conservative Court

• Impeachment? Unlikely—GOP House and Senate majorities lack incentive, and conviction requires 17 Republican defections out of 50

• Judicial Relief? A 6–3 conservative Supreme Court could curtail decertification on standing or federalism grounds, stalling any remedy until the next cycle. In other words, they could concede that the fraud likely occurred, but they could stop short of decertification and defer any remedy to the next election cycle.

Scenario B: Democratic House, Republican Senate & Conservative Court

• Impeachment? House impeaches (simple majority), but Senate removal still demands two-thirds—67 votes—unlikely without a massive GOP revolt.

• Legislative Fixes? Federal reforms to tighten certifications face Senate filibuster and Court challenges under a narrow Elections Clause interpretation.

Scenario C: Democratic Control of Congress & Conservative Court

• Statutory Reforms? Democrats could pass mandatory paper-ballot and audit laws, but the Supreme Court might strike them down for infringing “state sovereignty” over elections.

• Removal? Impeachment and removal still hinge on two-thirds Senate support—absent major GOP defections, the president remains in office.

Under What Circumstances Would Senators Break Ranks?

Conviction depends on an extraordinary alignment of irrefutable evidence, overwhelming public outrate, and institutional self-preservation — all of these things coming together sufficiently to move, ultimately, 17 Republican Senators to stand up and vote for Trump’s impeachment. The evidence would have to be extremely powerful — machine logs, sworh whistleblower testimony, insider confessions all pointing to a coordinated conspiracy. There would have to be overwhelming public outrage including outrage from disenchanged MAGAsphere inhabitants. All of this would have to be perceived by the defecting senators as having weakened Trump, while at the same time posing a threat to the continued functioning of Congress and the Senate — i.e. a self-preservation component woudl need to kick in in which the Senators saw the path to self-preservation as oppostion to Trump, not submission to him.

Absent these, our Constitution’s super-majority safeguards and judicial checks present formidable barriers—even in the face of admitted election theft.

The Bottom Line

The thought experiment is chilling and, frankly, discouraging. Our strongest legal tools—decertification, criminal prosecution, impeachment, civil suits—are formidable but can be stymied by partisan majorities and a compliant, sympathetic Supreme Court. That reality underscores why, even if widespread fraud is proven, that would just be Act One in a norm-shattering three act confrontation.

[Author’s Closing Note: I wish I could be more optimistic that institutions would hold in such a situation, but the odds are not great. The already-weakened institutions of ths country seem likely to be inadequate to the task they would face in such a situation.

One final thought — this is all just war gaming and analysis. Everyone can do it, and I’m interested in thoughtful rebuttals or counterarguments. I’ve tried to work it out as best I can. Feel free to critique it or, as we say in the film biz, “give me your notes.” As Joyce Vance says everyday — we’re in this together.]

Also, please allow me to utter: “whew, that was a lot of work” and on the heels of that, a plea for your support. These are the most challenging times I’ve ever encountered in a life that’s had it’s share of challenges. Your support as a free subscriber (good) or a paid subscriber (better) really helps keep the fires burning and helps us grow the community, making the voice here have more rleevance. So thanks in advance for signing up or upgrading. It matters.]