Given that there appears to be abundant evidence that Trump and company conspired with

[Atticus]

AT LEAST the Russians and possibly the Arabs and Israelis to steal the US presidency, explain the posters here who blithely state that he won "legally" and "in accordance with the Constitution".

[manor321]

1. He can be impeached. Impeachment is the resolution.

Elections cannot be rerun. Not in the Constitution.

This is not hard to understand.

[Atticus]

2. Is there some reason you totally ignored the OP's request? nt

[shanny]

3. manor is right, whether it is palatable or not.

The founders never envisaged this situation and they included no solution beyond impeachment.

[Atticus]

4. So, if someone becomes president by dint of his criminal acts, he has won

"legally"?

Do his crimes become "legal" if he wins?

If one commits the same crimes, but LOSES the election, is THAT legal, too?

[marylandblue]

7. No his crimes are still illegal, but he has to be impeached or indicted.

And indictment might not make it through the courts. We just don't have an easier way.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

8. Is winning the presidency with illegal help a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

We already know you can get impeached for lying about getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. What would it take for a Republican to be impeached, convicted and removed from office? My thought is there is nothing Trump could do -- nothing -- that would cause the cult to vote him out.

[shanny]

9. No I don't think it is "legal"

but the problem is there is no mechanism to address it. We don't have an articile or amendment or law that permits us to just Do Over an election. After this debacle maybe we can get one. Regardless: we do not have one now. It is a flaw, clearly--the Founders lacked the imagination to conceive of rump. Or they thought they addressed it with the Electoral College and impeachment. So what they didn't foresee was the likes of preznit rump with the support of a supine Congress.

I am sorry if you are outraged. You have a right to be. We all do. But it doesn't change the parameters.

[Atticus]

10. Thank you for your reasoned response. I am not saying that the mechanism for dealing with Trump

now exists. I am saying that one could be fashioned from existing legal principles that could pass Constitutional muster, but we have to move beyond "If it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, you can't do it".

Thanks again.

[shanny]

11. Maybe there is a way. I think Robert Reich has written something

on the issue. I hope some people more knowledgable than myself can figure out a way to nullify the whole nightmare, including judicial appointments. But I assume it would take an overwhelming catalyst to set that in motion, one that could bring at least some of the opposition on board and dawg knows what that could be, given that nothing has phased them so far.

I have feared, and said, from the beginning that the only way out of this is through. With the House in our hands I can see a light at the end of the tunnel, and maybe it isn't a train.

Hang in there.

[marylandblue]

5. "legal" does not mean "right" or "just."

We have the oldest Constitution in the world. It is also the hardest to amend. We can't use an 18th Century document to solve 21st Century problems. We've been holding it together with bubble gum and duct tape. Our system is doomed to fail, just like all other systems have eventually failed. If not now then maybe 20 years from now. Hopefully the end will not be too bloody and we can rebuild something better.

[onecaliberal]

12. We don't know if it was legal. He won the electoral college.