There is no post ipso facto mechanism for handling this in the Constitution.
That statement seems technically correct, if only simply due to the passage of time; but cheer up, it certainly does not now prevent charges based on violation of various state statutes.
Meanwhile, the Constitution does provide for the Jan 6 Joint Session of Congress. That session was to be held after the "fact" for the sole purpose of objecting to the votes of the various states prior to inauguration.
With that, one can only speculate as to the basis for the decision by Speaker Pelosi to not provide additional security when such was thought warranted by her Capitol Police downline. It was her call and perhaps her call alone.
Your right. And when you follow the laws put in place by the constitution then it’s not needed. They changed the laws without the legislature doing it. That was the time for them to do something. And judges should not have allowed it. I heard the SOS did it and the governor signed off on it. Everyone was in on this. And the media is hiding it. Sad. Would they have all stolen this if a politician was running and not Trump.
Any lawyer saying that can’t be done “post ipso facto” is the sort of person who’d defend his murder client by saying that punishing my client won’t bring back the dead, so why bother?”
This is the Hillary defense of sending her gay ambassador off to a Islamic (gay hating) hellhole to peddle guns and then being surprised that he is murdered — and also not sending help to prevent that.
Has the Const no mention of how to handle fraud? How to handle oppression in one state because others engaged in fraud?
Excuses to cover “your cut”.
The wall is over there. Line up.