I don't get it, we are punishing Russia for meddling in election, but we have to keep the winner???

[jodymarie aimee]

More sanctions against Putey by Obama. And Trump will have a toddler tantrum. Now MSM talking fallout and cyberware jazz. To think if Reagan never won, or JFK never died, and Bobby was elected, or if Gore had won...you know the fantasy, can you imagine all the cool space-agey things we would be doing. All the biggees would be settled for GOOD, no fights to refight, no backsliding..no fucking around with Rs.....I know we at 240 are a baby country, but this is ridiculous, we should be well past adolescence by now.

[atreides1]

1. Obama has to show proof

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312049-obama-under-pressure-to-prove-russian-interference-in-election

[uponit7771]

9. He has, there's 17 other agencies that says there's something and something is enough in this case

... and way beyond what is needed to act.

[truebluegreen]

49. 17 agencies that

Are shrouded in secrecy and/or lie for a living. I want to see proof, and arrests.

[wishstar]

63. That article was written before today's new sanctions announced and declassified reports released

[Greybnk48]

2. I don't get it either.

If we have hard evidence that a foreign country hacked our election, AND that an arm of the FBI conspired to destroy one of the candidates with false propaganda on the media, day in and day out days before an election, why is this election not nullified?

Why are we bumbling along like this is something we have to swallow...we meaning the MAJORITY.

[jberryhill]

10. "why is this election not nullified?"

Explain how that process works.

I can't find the procedure for "nullify the election" in my copy of the Constitution. Perhaps yours includes that section.

[Greybnk48]

16. No surprise since neither you nor I are

constitutional scholars. My point is that there must be some proviso within the constitution that addresses the interference in a national election by a foreign (hostile) power. I can't believe that's not the case.

No need for nastiness or snark, btw. It does not make anyone look intelligent, just petty.

[former9thward]

18. The Constitution is an extremely short document.

A person need not be a "Constitutional scholar" to read it. It can be read in a half hour easily. There is no provision whether you believe it or not.

[Greybnk48]

20. Collusion with a foreign govt. to win an election,

I would think, falls under this law, based on the Constitution. But as I said, I am not familiar with the nuances that actual Constitutional scholars have parsed out over the years.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

[Greybnk48]

21. Hell, Trump broke this LAW when he violated

the Cuban embargo, no need to even mention Russia. It disqualifies him to hold office if I've read it correctly, that is.

www.newsweek.com/.../donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-fl..

[jberryhill]

24. And so what?

To be President, one must:

1. Be 35 or older,
2. Born a US Citizen,
3. Resided in the US for 14 years prior to election.

One can be a convicted criminal, an insane lunatic, or any number of other things.

There is nothing which prevents election of someone who broke a law or any number of laws.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. Personally I think voting machines in rust belt states were hacked, but

absent that the time to nullify an election was on election day by SHOWING UP and voting FOR Hillary Clinton.

Anyone who did anything else is responsible for the nightmare about to unfold.

[redstatebluegirl]

51. Amen!

[treestar]

32. I guess the founders

Thought it would take care of itself. They could not imagine voters who would elect a crook.

[onenote]

39. You would be wrong to think that what went on here is treason. For myriad reasons.

We can start with the fact that the constitution expressly limits the circumstances that can be prosecuted as "treason", which is why such prosecutions are as rare as hen's teeth in our history. It applies if someone levies war against the US or provides aid and comfort to an enemy.

So what is a state of war? It's a shooting conflict. And we're not in a shooting conflict with Russia. Statements that Russia's hacking of emails was an act of war are simply wrong, because if they were right then we'd be in a lot of wars since there are other foreign governments whose agents have engaged in cyber-espionage against the US government and/or its citizens.

And what about giving aid and comfort to an "enemy"? Well, the term enemy, while not defined in the treason provision, is defined elsewhere in the US Code and those definitions almost certainly represent the outer boundaries of what/who constitutes an "enemy" for purposes of the treason provision.


Thus, I refer you to the definition of enemy found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "the term "enemy" means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States."

The term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not amount to a conflict subject to the laws of war.

As has been pointed out numerous times, it is because treason is so very narrowly defined and so thus so difficult to prosecute (as was the intent of the drafters of the Constitution) those not prosecuted for treason have included the Rosenbergs, John Walker Lindh, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, Edward Snowden....the list goes on.

There is absolutely no chance that Trump will be prosecuted for "treason" nor would there be any chance of him being convicted if such a prosecution was brought.

Finally, foreign efforts to influence US elections and of themselves aren't considered criminal or the basis for any charges against those in the US that might be encouraging such efforts. I believe it was the president of France and the prime minister of Italy that publicly "endorsed" Hillary over Trump -- presumably because they felt the election of Hillary would be better for their countries (and probably for the world as a whole) than Trump's election. Did anyone from the campaign discuss those endorsements with them before or after the fact? Don't know. Don't care. Crimes may have been committed by the Russians and its even possible that Trump was in some way complicit, but even that wouldn't mean he would or could be charged with or convicted of treason.

[jberryhill]

22. The Constitution takes up four pages of parchment

There's no "nastiness or snark" involved in reading a document that takes under a half hour top to bottom.

No there is nothing in it about interference in a national election by a foreign (hostile) power.

If someone wanted to really undo this country, they would render us ignorant of how our own government functions.

[bowens43]

35. there isn't Read it yourself.

the only recourse would be impeachment if the president is complicate in a crime.

[milestogo]

38. Barack Obama is a Constitutional Law Scholar

So he knows what can be done.

[marybourg]

55. I can't claim the mantle of constitutional

scholar, but I have spent 2 semesters studying it and several years dealing with it in real life and I assure you that the only provisions the founders made for dealing with this situation was the Electoral Collage - which failed us - and the remedy of impeachment which requires inauguration first.

This has been addressed over and over here on DU and, I'm sure, in the news media. If you don't believe it by now, well you should, at the very least, get yourself a copy of the Constitution on line and see what you can find that no one else can.

[jmowreader]

40. The Framers never envisioned a scenario where they'd need one

The poor deluded Framers thought the American people would always put honorable people up for election to the presidency. Imagine their shock if they were told, "in 1980 the American people had to choose between an honorable peanut processor from Georgia who is a smart but quiet man, and a thug from California." After explaining to them what a thug was, the story would continue: "The thug cut a deal with a group of people who'd taken one of our embassies hostage: hold those hostages until I'm elected..."

Sorry folks, but I just figured out all the news about jobs returning to the US, and now I don't feel so good.

[jberryhill]

42. Nonsense

The Constitution provides a mechanism for Congress to remove a president.

But what they certainly didn't envision is "make it up as you go along" government.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. The perception is locked in. Trump was bolstered by Russia.

Trump loses credibility as a president, especially when his opponent manage to garner 2.9 million more votes.

The next four years will be interesting. We'll get to see if the Republicans in congress have a spine.

[bdamomma]

5. read this article

tRump just wants to move on: what a jerk read his comments. this man/child is not fit to hold office period. He is really detached from reality.



http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/asked-about-russia-sanctions-trump-says-we-ought-to-get-on-with-our-lives/

Asked by reporters if the United States should sanction Russia, Trump replied: “I think we ought to get on with our lives. I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what’s going on.”

[ananda]

6. I know.

This country has a way of backing or tolerating
things that are totally wrong and insane.

[doc03]

7. If there were a million people in the streets and if the media covered it we could

get it nullified. It took years of constant pressure to get us out of Vietnam and not until people gave their lives at Kent State did it finnaly get results. It was going for a few days then just died out. We are screwed.

[jberryhill]

11. "not until people gave their lives at Kent State did it finnaly get results"

The Kent State shooting happened in 1970. It obviously had zero effect on the subsequent re-election of Nixon, and the Vietnam War didn't end until 1975.

[doc03]

19. I think that turned the tide and it started winding down then or we would

still be there. So I guess it is hopeless just bend over and ask for more.

[MineralMan]

31. Well, then, by that standard,

maybe the election will be nullified in 2021.

Here's the thing: Once a President takes office, the ONLY way to remove that person from office is through impeachment and conviction in Congress. There is NO other way. You do the math: Who is in control of Congress?

[jmowreader]

43. There's also the 25th Amendment

Section 4 is a blueprint by which Pence can overthrow Trump.

Step 1: Russia does or says something that makes it clear Trump is feeding classified information to them. Putin didn't go to all the trouble of interfering in our election because he's a nice guy.

Step 2: Pence and the Cabinet send a letter to the President Pro Tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that says Trump isn't able to be president because he can't be trusted with sensitive information.

Step 3: Trump sends a tweet claiming Pence is a liar. He'll also mention that quart of strawberries in the White House refrigerator.

Step 4: Pence sends another letter to Congress: Trump is still unfit to serve, and the mess boys ate those damned strawberries.

Step 5: Two-thirds of Congress votes to remove Trump from office, and he's gone.

[MineralMan]

44. Two thirds of Congress is a very, very difficult bridge to cross.

Either way, it's not going to happen. Impeachment and conviction is easier that a 25th Amendment solution. That only requires a majority of the House.

Either way, we end up with Pence, too. That's no improvement, actually.

[jmowreader]

47. Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you

Consider: A Congressman cares most about his seat. If they can prove Trump did something bad enough, any GOP congressman who didn't vote to rid us of that man would lose his or her seat in the next election. (Democrats are a different story: all of them will vote to remove the louse.)

If he did something bad enough to kick off the 25th, I think they would immediately begin impeachment hearings. The Constitution isn't all that clear on what to do when we find out the president is a double agent.

[MineralMan]

48. The Constitution is quite clear.

That would be a High Crime. So, the impeachment provisions would apply.

The 25th Amendment would not have anything to do with such a situation. But, do you have any proof of that? Doubtful, I'd think.

[Charles Bukowski]

34. US involvement in the war ended in 1973

We began decreasing troop strength significantly beginning in 1970.

The enormous anti-war sentiment at home played a huge part in forcing LBJ out of office, and it hamstrung the hawkish Nixon's efforts efforts to win the war with force. Saving face via diplomacy was his only real option.

If you want to wave the white flag and cow-tow to the Republicans, knock yourself out. Some of us would rather fight these fucks at every turn.

[dumbcat]

66. Maybe the public, visible involvement, but

there were still targeted "support" hostilities going on around the area (particularly along the Ho Chi Minh Trail) through April of 1975. I know that for a fact, as I was there helping to target them.

[bowens43]

36. the is no provision in the constitution for nulification of an election.

100 million, 200 million people in the street would not be able to get it nullified.

[MineralMan]

45. A million people is less than 1% of the registered voter population.

You're dreaming if you think that's enough to change things. It's simply not.

[uponit7771]

8. +1

[Raine1967]

12. Our Constitution is not set up for what we are witnessing,

We have no legal means to nullify an election.

We are going to see a lot more things the constitution is not prepared for.

[Zambero]

13. Sadly true

The Founders envisioned many future scenarios, but cyber hacking of the election process by a foreign entity was not among them.

[Rex]

57. I doubt the Founders thought we would ever elect a blue blooded plutocrat to the highest

office in the land.

[Raine1967]

58. Exactly.

It gonna get dicy in the coming weeks and months.

[Rex]

59. Most people would think the POTUS would have to give up his holdings.

Not so, Trump can still stay in business and every single place he owns or leases can become a target for terrorists. A hyper clusterfuck the Founders could never have thought up.

[gordianot]

14. If after an election an American President wanted to reconcile with the British empire?

Or after Pearl Harbor the United States surrendered to the empire of Japan? No NATO and capitulation to Comminist Russia and hence no Cold War would it had been possible? An elected President with the aid of a hostile nation takes office? Which scenario is worse?

[ffr]

15. $10.6 Trilllion dollars lost in 8 years under GWB

And tRump makes him look like a genius!

We are so fcuked!!

Going from forecast CBO budget surpluses and total debt pay-off to $10.6T in total public debt. This is what we're looking at again.

Did Bush II add $10.6T to Total Public Debt?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251145377

[LisaM]

17. LOL, I would have liked all those people to stick around or win, too....

But I don't think of it in terms of cool, space-agey things. I think of things like more parks, less population (because birth control), more robust schools, stronger funding for the arts, and so on! (I'm not against science, I just imagine a more verdant world).

[jodymarie aimee]

23. yes, by space-agey I didn't mean outer space!!

I meant WHOOSH...progress in all avenues. Free college, Medicare for all, arts most certainly, NO wars ever, Fairness Doctrine reinstated, no lying televisions, civility because everyone would get along. We would have abolished the R party and have 2 wings of the DEMS !! We would be so happy that the Rs would cease to even exist. No need for them. All the things we protested for in the 60s would be cemented in our society. Yeah, the only George Jetson aspect would be, we and our briefcases would fly thru the air!!

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. Also missing is any talk of cleaning it up for the next election

Even if they can't do anything legally about nullifying these results, where is the big announcement that they will be going full paper ballots next election, at least until they are certain their computers are hacker proof, or that there will be an over-ride to allow monitoring of software by elected officials which has been sealed off because of proprietary commercial property laws?

I understand that in the US, the States take care of the election process (should be a federal responsibility) but can't there be some kind of override when National Security is at stake?

[Thinkingabout]

26. When there are hearings in Congress they will not be in the open, they will be with those with

security clearance and will not be made public. Obama knows this how this will be handled, those demanding this information be released should think why this will not be done. Why, if the Russians, etc determine the ways we have determined how this information will be given it would be the same as two opposing sports teams giving the other team all of their plays, etc and then they could defend against the offense.

[triron]

27. I suppose Obama

might be able to declare 'martial law' under some circumstances.
But what would the cost be to social and economic stability?

[onenote]

41. Not in any stretch of the imagination under these circumstances

Here is how the SCOTUS has described the circumstances when "martial law" might be declared:

"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

[Javaman]

28. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength and...

fiction is truth.

[mac56]

29. If there's interference on the play, the touchdown is nullified.

[bowens43]

37. this is not a silly game

[MineralMan]

46. For pete's sake! This is not a football game.

There are no referees. There is no review of a play. This is not that.

[nini]

33. What exactly can Obama do with our current Constitution and laws?

I agree this all sucks but not sure how something can be done with what is known and laws we have.

[MineralMan]

62. He can be President for the next 21 days.

That's what. Watch the news. His end-of-term actions have begun.

[LisaL]

50. Yep, winner is all ours. No returns.

Lucky us.

[truebluegreen]

52. Ooooh it's just not fair!

Somebody effed with our election and now we're stuck with a fascist pig!

Tell it to (insert country name here; you can start with Iran 1953 if you like).

Not that I believe this debacle can all be laid at the feet of the Russians--we are perfectly capable of screwing stuff up without assistance--but complaining about it when it has been our modus operandi for decades is just...priceless.

[Turbineguy]

53. The "winner"

will have less legitimacy. Also it puts him on a collision course with impeachment.

[Rex]

56. I said the same thing in 2000, why did the guy that lost get to become POTUS?

Nobody cared then, sadly it seems nobody cares now.

[TheFrenchRazor]

65. correct; get ready to do it again and again. we need all paper ballots, HAND-COUNTED;

it is the only way our election can be remotely secure, and even that is not a guarantee.

[TheFrenchRazor]

64. yep; it is BS. we are in uncharted territory. nt

[flvegan]

67. Keeping the ole powder dry, dontchaknow!

Driest fucking powd...nevermind.