“My suspicion that Time’s piece is both pre-emptive strike and damage limitation exercise. It anticipates the possibility that Trump will provide evidence in support of his claim that the election was “stolen.”
This evidence will be much harder to brush under the carpet in the Senate.
I’m reminded here of an old article from the Times (of London), which described the process whereby political projects are advanced by stealth.
It is at first denied that any radical new plan exists; it is then conceded that it exists but ministers swear blind that it is not even on the political agenda; it is then noted that it might well be on the agenda but is not a serious proposition; it is later conceded that it is a serious proposition but that it will never be implemented; after that it is acknowledge that it will be implemented but in such a diluted form that it will make no difference to the lives of ordinary people; at some point it is finally recognised that it has made such a difference, but it was always known that it would and voters were told so from the outset.”