Trump clearly has not facilitated a good faith, peaceful transition of power.

And this matters - the 9/11 commission noted that the rushed transition due to Bush v Gore contributed to the intelligence lapses that lead to the attack. And that wasn't even a bad actor harming the transition like we have today.

Dems didn't delay transition of power, but they did spend a huge amount of political capital trying to convince the country that Trump's victory was invalid or fraudulent.

Manafort (plea deal and convictions), Roger Stone (convicted on all counts), Cohen (plead guilty and convicted on multiple counts), Flynn (plead guilty to lying to the FBI, pardoned) are the big names.

All direct associates of Donald Trump, and all their criminality was for his benefit.

The main reason Donald Trump hasn't been charged with anything himself is because he is using the office of the presidency to shield himself. We will soon see if he can survive without a scratch without that shield.

No, they spent a lot of political capital on the idea that Trump was corrupt and aided by foreign powers, basically no Democrats (in national office, at least) seriously advanced the case that Trump's election was either invalid or fraudulent (that his conduct, including conduct after the election, warranted impeachment and removal, yes, but that's a very different case than the election being fraudulent or invalid.)

As a parallel with subordinate offices, Democrats generally think Barr is a bad attorney-general, and his appointment was a result of improper motives, and some have made calls that he should be impeached, but none have claimed his appointment is invalid.

On the other hand, Chad Wolf’s appointment as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security has been described and challenged as invalid (and, in fact, found to be so by courts, invalidating official acts dependent on his appointment to that position.)

There is a difference between acheiving an office by unethical means, or having bad conduct warranting removal from office, on one hand and illegitimately claiming office on the other hand. You are improperly conflating accusations of the former with accusations of the latter.

Crossfire Hurricane wasn't enough of a ruckus?

It came out recently that Eric Swalwell was targeted by a Chinese spy, but cut ties after a 'defensive briefing' by the FBI. Hillary's campaign also received a 'defensive briefing' in 2015 when a foreign government tried to influence her campaign through a campaign associate. Trump's campaign never got one, instead FBI ordered an investigation on the flimsies grounds and outright lies to the FISA courts (and what turned out to be opo-research funded by the Hillary campaign and promulgating actual Russian disinformation)..

And then the next four years had Hillary going around saying explicitly that Trump is not a legitimate president - a claim not challenged by media and echoed by the Democrats. The media itself kept pushing the discredit Steele dossier throughout that time. So I do roll my eyes when political activists in the Democratic party and media are now all about 'election integrity' after what they did to the trust in the system over the last 4 years. And I'm not really worried about Trump bitching on Twitter and putting out lawsuits (as is his right), as some threat to Democracy.

He does not have the right to ask state governors to ignore the election results and appoint electors who will vote for Trump. That is far beyond the legitimate exercise of Trump's rights.

I want you to step back and really consider the reporting on this by taking into context the kind of reporting of the behind-the-scene Trump Administration actions that came out of the media. And given that, I have no idea how you can possibly take this interpretation at face-value.

For the last 4 years, there has been an egregious claim after another, each more bonkers than the next, unverified, stemming from some 'anonymous sources' against Trump that has time and time again proven to be without merit. Every.single.week.

Just recently, a news cycle was devoted to the claim that Trump will barricade himself in the office if Biden wins. Just prior to the election, multiple news cycles were devoted to reporting on Trump destroying postal boxes to prevent mail-in voting. A little before that, Trump was accused of ignoring Russian bounties on American soldiers (another meritless claim that was disavowed by the the Taliban, Russian, American Intelligence and Army with no evidence presented by NYTimes). Again, this occurred every single week for the last 4 years.

And you don't even have an ounce of skepticism of reporting that Trump in a private conversation asked governors to break the law, given how this kind of stuff has been reported, time and time again?

The gaslighting of the last 4 years has been insane and the media is simply incapable of objective straight reporting on Trump. I know how that sounds, but that's what it is.

Whether he should do it is a different question.

The theory here is that the US Constitution, because of wording in Article II ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors [...]") that if interpreted hyperspecifically[1] implies that the legislature alone, and not Governor or state law, has the power to appoint electors. That has never been tested in practice.

But regardless, it would still be a state crime to do it. So no, he doesn't have the right.

[1] Obviously the reasonable interpretation of this line is "States decide for themselves how to choose electors", not something that makes assumptions about the structure of state government.

Whether people have the right to request governors to perform illegitimate actions... that probably depends on your definition of "right", and I don't care very much about having that debate.