Was Al Franken a felon and did his legal team engage in criminal conspiracy?

After all, he was behind by 215 votes when the official count was completed.

But Franken and his team insisted on a recount and then used all sort of legal advice and legal processes to try to alter the original count to his favor, including several lawsuits and appeals. His team also made (gasp) many calls to the election officials as well and was said to be in constant communication with the Secretary of State. Were those calls "perfect"? No, in fact the Secretary of State offered advice as to what sort of ballots Franken should challenged in order to gain an edge and did not provide the same information to the Coleman team. Ultimately they were successful in altering the results of the election and got the original counts reversed and Al Franken (not Norm Coleman) walked out as Senator.

Criminal conspiracy?

A criminal conspiracy is where a bunch of people plan and work together to commit a crime. 100% of the time a successful prosecution of a criminal conspiracy was able to establish that the defendants knowingly planned and worked together to commit what they knew was a crime. No time in history has there been a successful prosecution of people engaging in legal behavior that at the core was looking to fulfill a legal result.

Reality is that challenging an election is legal and having election results overturned is also quite legal. Recounts, inspection of ballots, auditing of voting machines, and other such post election actions are not illegal. They would not be illegal even if the person requesting them did not have a good faith belief that they would find anything.

In almost every election we have one or two races where it turned into some sort of recount, legal battle, protest, contest, or some form of legal battle. We have had election challenges in four of the last six Presidential elections. Recounts, lawsuits, ballot inspections, etc. In 2016 we even had ballot machines audited for potential fraud in Wisconsin. The most famous was 2000 where challenges in Florida ended up in the USSC weeks after the election was over. Funny how nobody engaged in the other three were considered criminals for conspiring to overturn results?

The reality is simple. Liberals are going back to the well on their tried and true believe that they can simply "change the rules" whenever it happens to suit them. Those who are unwilling to follow along with the arbitrary rule changes are considered stubborn, stuck in the past, on the wrong side of history, or when all else fails, they can just be called racist.

Challenging the election results is now being deemed a criminal conspiracy in spite of every single thread of logic demanding such a thought is ridiculous. Yet, because it is the "bad orange man" we are talking about, people are willing to applaud it. Oh, and if the bad orange man or another horrible Republican wins a close election 2024, then the rules will change again. No longer will challenging an election be considered a criminal enterprise, but rather it will be a completely legal if not noble cause once again.