If it comes out that Russia stole the election for trump and all of the other illegal

[onecaliberal]

Conspiracies against the United States and collusion is exposed with regard to russia and trump/pence are indicted, is there any possibility that everything dump signed cannot be considered constitutional or legal.

[Lee-Lee]

1. No

[Pachamama]

2. Or Judges he chose impeached?

I certainly hope so

[SamKnause]

3. No, we are fucked.

[ClarendonDem]

4. No, that's not how our Constitution or elections work

Republicans made the same arguments when they were spreading their racist lies that President Obama was illegible because he was born in Kenya. If Trump is impeached all the laws that Congress passed and he signed stand, and all the judges that were confirmed by the Senate serve for life unless they are impeached because of bad behavior.

[onecaliberal]

5. But theyre rhetoric was pointless and ridiculous. Were talking about conspiracy against

The United States. Clear violations of the Logan act. And war against the United stayes with cooperation from the Republican Party by a foreign government. Not even close to the same thing. There was no investigation into their allegation because they pulled it all out of their collective asses.

[ClarendonDem]

6. Yeah, of course their rhetoric was pointless

But the analysis is the same -- if a president is removed that doesn't mean the laws he signed or judges he appointed are void.

[triron]

7. There is something deeply wrong with a society that

allows this to happen, especially without redress.

[ClarendonDem]

11. The redress is impeaching Trump

If collusion is proven. Personally think that if he's impeached it will be for obstruction of justice, which wouldn't have anything to do with the election itself.

[tazkcmo]

35. We have redress

It's called voting, protest, written petitions, phone calls, emails and other forms of legal activism with out fear of imprisonment or reprisal from our government. We just have to care enough in large enough numbers to do it.

[FirstLight]

8. I agree

This situation is basically an INVALID Presidency IMO

There's no precedent and we are definitely in a Constitutional Crisis. There is no law on the books for what we are dealing with.

So the question then becomes-How do we fix it?
Also: Does the line of succession still apply? Even if several of those in line are illegitimately in office or part of the cover up/collusion.
Also:Who gets to fix it? It can't be Congress or the SCOTUS...It's gonna take a whole"independent commission" of sorts...maybe even something like a Constitutional Congress like back in the early days of the Republic.

Our Country will not come out of this without scars ...and they will be big...like Post Civil War or Cold War Big **Especially since this ALSO involves another country who is still hostile and dangerous!

~ ~~

oh God...I think I need some brandy in my coffee now

[ClarendonDem]

12. Why can't it be Congress?

I agree that it probably isn't SCOTUS.

[FirstLight]

14. Because the conflicts of interest are too great

on BOTH SIDES

Seriously...do you want the likes of McCain or TurtleBoy having that kind of influence for generations?

It's gonna be ugly no matter what, but too many of our current congress are beholden to greater power$
That goes for ALL of them

[ClarendonDem]

15. I don't see any other option

If it was some sort of panel it would have to be appointed by Congress, with the same problems.

[FirstLight]

18. Ideally

We could literally have a special election

We'd have to choose delegates from the basic population
Not career politicians but people who actually want the job of sitting down and hashing through the PRACTICAL nuts & bolts of basic rules for protecting elections
Nobody who receives ANY money from corporations is allowed to go

Then the go into a room with some college professors who understand constitutions and policy basics and hash it out like a second Bill of Rights, just like the first Constitutional Congress in Philly...1787? 1789?
Except this time it wouldn't just be white slave owners and merchants making the rules.


oh I know, I'm an idealist...or a loony

[Baconator]

69. Uh huh...

[onecaliberal]

24. Agree with all your points. Thanks for articulating my thoughts better than I could.

[bluestarone]

26. you for sure

have some VERY GOOD POINTS TY

[boston bean]

9. It wasnt an election.

[ClarendonDem]

10. Of course it was

And Trump won based on the way we elect presidents. I don't like the outcome, but claiming it wasn't an election ignores reality.

[boston bean]

13. To not acknowledge it wasnt an election but a farce ignores reality.

[FirstLight]

16. +100!

It's not legitimate, even of you say "well, we followed the procedure"
The damn thing was rigged on MULTIPLE fronts (*cough* DNC too *cough*)

And the fact it was infiltrated/hacked/etc by a FOREIGN HOSTILE Govt really de-legitimizes the "following the procedure" argument

[ClarendonDem]

17. I voted for HRC

In a state she won (Virginia). There's no evidence a single vote was actually flipped in any other state, only that a lot of easily misled voters were perhaps misled.

[boston bean]

19. If it is proven he colluded with russians on releasing dirt on hillary

it was a crime. Not an election.

Now what do we do with that?

Let the assholes who committed and conspired this crime receive benefit from it.

I don’t think so.

We must demand a correction. What that is I am not sure. But no party gets to benefit from the crime.

I think a new election is best. And everything goes back to where it was until that is completed.

[Fred Sanders]

28. Yes. If no consequence only reward for the crime then where will it end. Fruit of the poisoned tree

is not acceptable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Then it's up to Congress to impeach him, and Pence, if they won't both resign

That is what the US Constitution says - impeach for high crimes.

And then Ryan becomes president, thanks to an act of 1947. You have to get people to vote in Democrats the next time.

[boston bean]

64. Nope. Sorry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. Remember, this isn't about what you'd like to happen

It's about the United States and its laws.

[boston bean]

71. And a election was won via criminal means. Everything you know is out the window.

The usual aint gonna work.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. It wouldn't be "the usual" for both the president and VP to go

and those are the 2 in the election. Unless Ryan was shown to be involved in the stealing of the election as well, him just being in the same party is not going be be enough, legally, to overthrow the US order of succession.

[boston bean]

73. We are in some unusual times which will require unusual measure. A foreign criminal enterprise

conspired to throw our presidency to one off its assets.

[dawg day]

75. Well, the evidence isn't all in yet.

And what does "flipped" mean anyway?

I guess we'll find out one way or another, but the night is young.

But we don't have to limit the potential badnesses to any one issue. Maybe no vote was "flipped" (and we don't know yet), but election fraud doesn't always involve meddling with voting machines. Funneling money or labor into a campaign can also be an act of fraud. For example, a robocall helpfully telling voters where to go to vote, and giving the wrong address or date, or promising to pick the voter up to take them to the polls, and never showing up-- those are pretty common low-tech frauds, as are postcard pretending to be from the election board and telling the recipient his registration was revoked.
Not to mention the billboards in Democratic areas with dire warnings that voting is criminal in some way (if your signature doesn't match, you could be arrested, and so on. Or falsely alleging that you can't vote if you've been arrested, etc.

And those are all low-tech ways. Who knows what the hackers are up to. Clinton won many more votes, but in a few states, we don't know how votes were suppressed or manipulated, whether actual fraud was involved.

[trueblue2007]

44. If Trump won with THE HELP OF OUR ENEMY RUSSIA ..... it was not an election.

[ClarendonDem]

47. Look, I think this whole thing is a bit silly and a distraction

But if you wanted to vote you could, and if you wanted to vote for HRC, or Trump, or a write-in, you could. What exactly negates the "election" part of this last election? Just because people MIGHT not have voted for HRC because Russia put false info on Facebook -- and I haven't seen any evidence that someone's vote actually changed -- that doesn't make the election illegitimate. It makes some people naive and easily influenced. I mean, a vast number of Republicans STILL believe President Obama was born in Kenya.

[TheFrenchRazor]

49. no, it was not. fraudulent vote counts are not an election. nt

[ClarendonDem]

52. What fraudulent vote counts?

I've seen no evidence of any fraudulent vote counts.

[Sanity Claws]

59. ineligible, not illegible

You might want to correct that. It is confusing.

[L. Coyote]

20. No, but a one sentence law can undo it all.

[Amishman]

23. It would probably take a constitutional amendment, given the need to remove judges

[Lee-Lee]

62. Not all of it

It can’t undo SCOTUS or other judicial appointees, for one example.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

21. No

And anyone thinking so is living in fantasy land.

He is the legitimately elected President and everything he signed and everyone he appointed stands unless they are removed through their already existing processes. Absent a Constitutional amendment, nothing changes that.

[shraby]

22. If Russia and trump rigged the election, he was not legitimately elected.

There should be a correction made and a huge penalty imposed.

No one should benefit from a rigged election.

[onecaliberal]

25. So much that.

[aikoaiko]

32. Yes, in a just world, but that's not how it works.

[ClarendonDem]

33. How?

This is completely disconnected from reality. How do you do that? It would at the very least require a constitutional amendment, which is virtually impossible in this toxic political atmosphere. Even if there is clear evidence Trump colluded, do you think any Republican would really support removing Gorsuch and the lower court judges?

[TheFrenchRazor]

50. this. yes, we are in uncharted territory, but that doesn't mean we just accept a bogus election. nt

[dawg day]

27. Ought to be true

College teams have had to forfeit games if it's revealed there was an ineligible player.

Trump should have to forfeit the whole election. Yeah, I know it's never been done before. But so what. When you attain something fraudulently, you generally don't get to keep it.

[onecaliberal]

29. Hear hear.

What will we tell the children, I mean the cons were so worried what to tell the children about a blow job.

[DangerousUrNot]

30. Good question, not sure.

I doubt it though.

[EL34x4]

31. Nope. Doesn't work that way.

This stuff reminds me of the Birthers who used to pray, "When we prove Obama was born in Kenya, everything he did will be nullified, right?" Heck, I can recall some Birthers arguing that since President Obama was clearly born in Kenya and McCain was born in a civilian hospital in Panama that Sarah Palin (or even Dick Cheney) was the rightful current U.S. President.

Nope. Not then. Not now. There is no "do over". There will be another election in 2020. The rules will be winning the electoral college, not the popular vote.

[Puzzledtraveller]

40. +1

It begs me to ask, "what's our strategy for moving forward, finding new voices, faces and crafting a unified message?" but I don't see much of that, here or anywhere.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. No. It doesn't work that way.

Everything that's been done has to be considered prospective, not retroactive.

[rainin]

36. Why can't we pass a law that makes this so?

The law could be retroactive and very specific. "Under these very specific conditions, all laws and actions are null and void." Why can't we do that? Then we reverse it all. By the time a case goes through the courts, it's done. They would do it. We need backbone.

[ClarendonDem]

41. It would take a constitutional amendment

Not a law. For instance, the constitution states judges serve for life. You can’t change that with a law.

[EL34x4]

42. Sure. We can do this! The process is called "Amending the Constitution"

There are specific procedures laid out on how to do this. They can be found in Article V of the Constitution.

Let's get the ball rolling!

[PoliticAverse]

45. If one Congress passed a law another can remove it. A new Congress could repeal any law passed...

in the past.

[ClarendonDem]

48. Yep

But Congress can't undo judicial appointments.

[rock]

37. Well, I do consider the Administration to be illegitimate

Even though there's no remedy under The Constitution, we the people, can still have an opinion of how legitimate the Administration (and the Congress) are and work to get the lawmakers to correct a bunch of the errors. One in particular: if we win the House and Senate, we should impeach Gorsuch from SCOTUS as his appointment does not pass the smell test.

[Puzzledtraveller]

38. Why entertain such a scenario?

The sad fact is that we will have a republican president for the next 3 and some change years. I am looking for the new voice of our party and I am not seeing a big discussion on that.

[sarisataka]

39. He has been duly elected

According to the process outlined in the Constitution. Therefore the laws he signs are valid unless the law itself is found unconstitutional. It cannot be challenged just on the base of his signature.

The only remedies are those outlined in the Constitution and The Ballot Box. People need to quit exploring fantasy and focus on reality.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

63. Sadly . . .

. . . a significant number of people here apparently find it easier and/or more comforting simply to indulge fantasy, ignore reality, and otherwise give vent to their emotions through a fairly constant stream of inarticulate, profane gibberish.

I guess that makes them feel better -- or feel better about themselves, for some reason -- but I don't see how coming across like a foul-mouthed lunatic wins elections. Unless one is a Republican, that is. I confess that such a strategy has worked in the past for them.

[onecaliberal]

43. My mind is blown that people yawn over the fact that there was a coup in the last

“election”. The occupant in the White House was NOT duly elected by the American prople. I’m sick of 30% of the population with a collective IQ of 75 holding the rest of us hostage with their fake Christian and fake morality bullshit. It’s time for us to stand up and say no fucking more. Fuck that looking forward bullshit. It has gotten us right here and I don’t know about you but here is possibly looking at nuclear war because an unstable piece of shit Russian puppet might be directed by Russia to do so.

[ClarendonDem]

51. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by a coup

Because there wasn't a coup, at least according to the definition of that word as I know it. There's no evidence a single vote was flipped from HRC to Trump, so where is the coup?

[onecaliberal]

53. Yes there is in at least 34 states machines were hacked by Russians.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russians-hacked-two-u-s-voter-databases-say-officials-

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/russia-hacking-hearing-states-targeted/index.html

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/13/report-russia-hacked-election-systems-in-39-us-states/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/06/06/report-us-voting-systems-maker-was-hacked-by-the-russians-but-theres-a-catch-n2336941

[ClarendonDem]

54. Hacking doesn't mean vote flipping

Zero evidence of vote flipping. Do you think HRC would ignore vote flipping if it happened.

[onecaliberal]

55. Spare me...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141928530

[ClarendonDem]

58. That doesn't answer my question

If there was any evidence vote flipping actually occurred, do you think HRC, or Pelosi, or the DNC, would ignore it?

[onecaliberal]

68. Yes just as they ignored WAR CRIMES from the previous republican president.

[meadowlander]

67. Vote flipping isn't the only way to throw an election.

Preventing people from voting in the first place by illegally purging their names from the voter rolls is also election tampering.

[Caliman73]

56. There were improprieties in the election to be sure.

However, those improprieties have not been adjudicated and regardless of how we feel about the Electoral College, the possible tampering of votes, and outside influence in our elections, the Electoral College elected Trump.

We do not have an institutional way of "reversing" all of the decisions and invalidating all of the policies that have been enacted. Trump can be impeached and tried. He and his administration can be removed along with any other people that assisted in the crimes committed, but there is a process of succession that is spelled out in the Constitution, which is a the basis of our laws. Perhaps an amendment can be made for situations in which invalid elections are suspected, investigated, and proven, but we do not have that right now. The best we can do right now is focus on the investigations ongoing, and pressure law makers to follow the rule of law when Trump's crimes are brought to light. We focus on taking power in 2018, then again in 2020 so that we can repair the damage done and safeguard the institutions that have supported the country and make sure that no one like Trump and the current GOP, ever threaten the foundations of the nation again.

[onecaliberal]

57. Yeah that pressure worked so well to spare us from the giveaway of our tax dollars last night.

[Caliman73]

77. You can keep fantasizing or you can do something for the future

It is up to you, but the election is not going to be overturned no matter how hard you wish for it.

[onecaliberal]

78. You are clueless about what I do or have done, so spare me your delusion.

[Caliman73]

79. You are right

All I have to go on is your posts bitching about something that isn't going to happen. Have a good one.

[delisen]

46. We have have never confronted this situation before so we are in new territory

While our Constitution does not appear to address this issue, if a massive number of citizens come to see that the works emanating from an illegitimately installed president are themselves illegitimate we will be presented with a crisis of confidence in our government and the rule of law.

I think much can be done to reverse course and to do so in a manner that is legal and ethical.

We must never simply say that our Constitution does not allow us any redress because our Constitution is not just about the letter of the law, it is about the spirit of the law.

[Iliyah]

61. Republican congress do not care about the USA nor her people

except for the .01%. With mounting evidence pointing to "stolen" "rigged" presidential election of 2016, they ain't gonna do a damn thing but ignore the whole matter.

The Republican congress could join with the Democratic congress and find ways to confront this matter and make sure it won't happen again. Together they could impeach t-rump because he has done overly impeachable things. Mike Pence is knee deep with Russia as well. For the sake of the country they could respond to this matter legally.

But the Republicans don't give a shit. Their goal is to give everything to the rich. Bottom line, fuck the good ole USA.

[Thunderbeast]

65. The remedy is a political one.

The President and Vice President, as well as all of the judges confirmed on his watch can be impeached.

Legislative damage can be reversed by congress.

Executive orders can be reversed by a new President.

Citizen's United can be over-ruled by Constitutional Amendment. If motivated, this could happen in a matter of weeks.

The only thing standing between a legal plan for remedy is a Congress that puts country before personal gain and consolidation of power.

Said another way: We're screwed.

The Republicans are a Kleptocratic Theocracy.

Get out the pitchforks.

[Baconator]

66. Nope

Also, that won't happen so it won't be an issue either way.

[Kimchijeon]

74. lol nope

by the time dump-ass and company gets in any trouble (doubtful but let's hope) - all the systems and shit legislation is already there, the system is in place to ensure that it's gonna stay on the books.

I mean ethically speaking, I am sure there are legal loopholes that could be used but c'mon let's face it - there's just too many corporate shitbags and shills at the federal level at this point, they are never going to allow that.

Even with the one or two ethical voices in the Senate or House or etc, they are not enough. And if they are being too noisy or nosy, look forward to some baloney "scandal" (Franken touched my boobies! Bernie grabbed my butt!)

They worked too hard to get their goody grabs, the dismantling and sell-off of the USAs assets is going forward as planned!

In a more ethical and honest world it should be called into question but I highly doubt that anything would come of trying to repeal/void bullshit legislation they signed after they are (hopefully) indicted/impeached. That would be nice.

[kennetha]

76. This is one of the glaring weaknesses of our constitution

There is no way except impeachment or the 25th Amendment to remove a president. No recall elections -- as in many states. No votes of no confidence -- as in all Parliamentary Systems. No possibility of Early Elections, as in Parliamentary Systems.

Only the very difficult to initiate and carry through process of Impeachment.

The Founding fathers had far too much confidence in the Separation of Powers and the power of institutional jealousy. They thought that the Congress would be too jealous of its institutional prerogatives to ever allow the Executive to run roughshod over the legislature. But they did not foresee the consequences of the rise of the Charismatic Presidency and a highly Partisan Legislature that was more jealous of party prerogatives than institutional ones. And they put the presidency almost entirely beyond the reach of the people (through mechanisms like recall elections) since they did not think of the President as elected by the people. Nor did they imagine the electoral college as a standing deliberative body that could exercise power over the president once elected. They saw the presidency as sort of like a quasi-king, subject to the limiting constraint of occasional and recurring election and the checks and balance of institutional competition among the branches.

Our current situation proves that they were not prescient. But since they made the constitution do frisking hard to amend, we are stuck with their somewhat archaic design.