* This thread will use military time and EST time zone for any times provided.

November 7, 2020 - The press calls the 2020 presidential election for now President-elect Joe Biden, 4 days after the election.

November 9, 2020

After meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and in violation of standing Department of Justice policy not to interfere in elections, US Attorney General Bill Barr authorizes federal prosecutors to investigate claims of electoral fraud.
Richard Pilger, the head of the DoJ’s Election Crimes Branch, resigns in response to Barr’s memo.
Trump fires Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. In response, Esper says, “Who’s going to come in behind me? It’s going to be a real ‘yes man.’ And then God help us.”

Trump immediately names Christopher Miller Acting Secretary of Defense.
Trump follows Esper’s firing with firing the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense, constituting a “near total decapitation of civilian leadership” at the Pentagon.
November 10, 2020

Kash Patel is named the new Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense. Patel previously held several positions in the Trump administration. He was also a top aide to Rep. Devin Nunes when Nunes chaired the HPSCI during the Mueller investigation.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says in a press conference that “There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration” and references the Electoral College.
November 12 - Multiple agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and associations of election officials issue a joint statement stating the election was secure, no votes were changed or lost, and voting systems were not compromised.
November 18 - Trump fires the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Christopher Krebs, for contradicting Trump on the security and legitimacy of the election.
November 24 - Patel is announced to be leading the Pentagon transition.

December 1, 2020 - Barr announces the DoJ found no evidence of widespread election fraud. Trump pushes back.
December 5, 2020

There are reports Patel is blocking Pentagon officials from cooperating with Biden transition.

The DoD pushes back on these claims and blames the Biden transition team. The meetings that needed to be scheduled with Defense Intelligence are quickly scheduled.
December 14, 2020 - A massive cyber attack on the federal government by Russia is announced.

December 15, 2020 - After rumors that Trump had been threatening to fire Barr, Barr tenders his resignation, effective December 23.
December 17, 2020 - The Department of Defense informs the Biden transition team that meetings scheduled for the next day will be rescheduled for the New Year.
December 18, 2020 - Acting Sec. Miller announces that the DoD and Biden transition teams will take a “mutually-agreed upon holiday pause.” The Biden team immediately pushes back on that and says they agreed to no such pause.
"We were concerned to learn this week about an abrupt halt," a Biden transition official states and shares the delay is limited to political appointees.
December 19, 2020 - Trump tweets the response to the cyber attack is “under control” and claims without evidence or corroboration the attack might have been committed by China.
December 22, 2020 - Biden tells press, “[The DoD] won't even brief us on many things. So I know of nothing that suggests [the cyber attack is] under control.”
December 23, 2020 - The DoD responds that Biden’s statement is “patently false.” Pentagon officials tell press, "The department will continue to provide the information and meetings necessary to ensure the continuity of government...
"... As we've said, meetings will begin again in early January, and in fact we've begun scheduling them."
December 28, 2020 - Biden transition again reports obstruction from the DoD. Biden states, “Right now we just aren’t getting all the information that we need from the outgoing administration in key national security areas. It is nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility.”

More from Cate Eland

I want to break down Lindsey's letter, because it is breathtakingly hypocritical and stoking division with every sentence, despite claiming to be concerned with healing.

1) "But now, in your first act as Majority Leader, rather than begin the national healing that the country so desperately yearns for, you seek vengeance and political retaliation instead."

Trump incited an attack on the Capitol, on Congress, and on a free & fair election.

Trump has yet to concede, to apologize, or to admit he was lying about the outcome of the election. He has done nothing that demonstrates he does not continue to present a danger to our nation.

Trump's supporters continue to conspire to overthrow the government--with Trump's implicit, and quite possibly explicit--support. At this very moment, over 20,000 troops are stationed in our nation's capital to ensure the inauguration of President-Elect Biden can be completed.

It is not "vengeance" or "political retaliation" to insist a man that has fomented and continues to inspire a violent insurrection against the government is unfit ever to hold office again.

This is, in fact, a bare minimum protection for our country against future harm by Trump.

More from Politics

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."

We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.

Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party