Can a Trumpocalyptic Meltdown Lead to an Election Do-Over? (Of course not...right?)

[ffr]

<snip>

We are living in weird, “unpresidented” times. They began with the simple fact that the mechanism by which Alexander Hamilton meant to prevent a populist autocratic despot from entering the White House has somehow put one there. Strange. But November 8 proved to be the beginning of the strangeness, not the end. Since then, of course, we have all had ringside seats to the nearly daily news blasts that have revealed, among other things, that

The Russians hacked the US election with the intent to swing it to Trump;

James Comey, who simply couldn’t sit on an important and allegedly relevant piece of information like the Weiner emails, knew about the hacking and decided not to reveal it before the election;

Trump’s campaign was “constantly” in touch with the Russians;

Vladimir Putin himself was allegedly involved in the hacking;

Trump’s chosen National Security Advisor, Retired General Michael Flynn, held phone conversations with the Russian ambassador before Christmas in which he told him to tell Putin not to retaliate for President Obama’s sanctions because Trump would lift them: a clear violation of the law;

Flynn then apparently lied about this to Vice President Pence;

Trump may well have known about these calls all along.

And that is merely the tip of just one iceberg in what seems to be a sea of them, a huge glacial mountainside that has collapsed into the Washington ocean and broken up into great floating fragments of scandal. Trump’s White House is, less than a month after his inauguration, awash in them. One of the most notable, of course, is the constant and obvious use of his position for personal profit. He is charging the government a fortune to cover rent for his wife’s security in Trump Tower, and now he wants to add a floor or two for the Defense Department. A member of his campaign signed off on a deal in December with the Russian oil company Rosneft for many millions that go to...someone. Just who is hard to tell because the actual money goes to some shell companies. But it doesn’t take a lot of deep thought to guess who might own those shell companies, especially when there is evidence that suggests collusion...
<snip>

Imagine with me that Trump’s Russia scandal continues to grow. (With the New York Times and Washington Post both determined to get to the bottom of it, plus the US intelligence communities all more eager to help due to their treatment by Trump, that seems not only possible but likely.) Imagine that, as it grows, we discover so much about it that even the GOP no longer can ignore it. In fact, it becomes such a conspiracy, clearly implicating some of them, that normal congressional exploration or even impeachment proceedings are not enough. The Democrats call for, and are granted, a Special Prosecutor.

We have not had one of these appointed in a long time, so let me remind you: they have awesome powers, and I use the literal meaning of the word there. They can subpoena anyone and charge anyone with anything.

Now imagine further that the Prosecutor’s investigation shows that, during the 2016 election campaign, Trump knowingly colluded with the Russians to steal the election. This is more than simply an impeachable or even a treasonous offense. This goes to the heart and integrity of the American electoral process itself. What possible remediation could be made?

Making Pence President continues to reward the theft. There is no Constitutional remedy for this. Hence we would need to find or create an extra-Constitutional one...- Huffington Post

Perhaps we would be contacting our local democratic congressperson and demanding they call in a Special Prosecutor. Wouldn't that be something!

[manicraven]

1. I want a Special Prosecutor! I wonder if that's in the future? Maybe if we win back the senate?

Glad the NY Times and WaPo are driving hard to get to the full story!

[Wounded Bear]

2. There is no Constitutional allowance for that...

just the succession act in Amendment 25

[zagamet]

3. I predict a do over will happen!!

On Nov 3, 2020.

Until then, any change in occupancy will follow current law:

Pence
Ryan
Sen Orrin Hatch
Tillerson
Mnuchin
Mattis...

Sorry, there's no provision in the Constitution to nullify an election. If such a provision were created, it'd be subsequently used by both sides, every election. Nuclear option on steroids.

[0rganism]

4. tbh our Constitution did have a number of provisions to protect us from this

the national election was only the first step
the electoral college was composed of actual people who chose to vote for Trump
congress had to approve the electoral college vote
there were some other steps along the way to certification of the result, too, every one of them a potential safeguard, every one of them ignored or subverted by the exuberant Republicans

[ffr]

5. You got that right!

[Hortensis]

6. No need to create "extra-Constitutional" remedies.

Lynchings, putches, etc., are all very time honored. Assassination by poison is getting more attention these days.

As for Pence, if he couldn't fulfill his duties for some reason, Paul Ryan would succeed to the presidency. After that comes a long list of Republicans, most of them supporters of the GOP's extremist agendas. Just as the Constitution requires.

But, sure, demanding a special prosecutor is well within the scope of the law. Of course, since CONGRESS does do the appointing, they're going to have to be pushed to it by events, the biggest by far their own voters becoming angry.

[msongs]

7. in its role as interpreter of the consitution the supreme court could order new elections nt

[longship]

8. For Christ fucking sakes. Read your fucking US Constitution!

There are no fucking do-overs for presidential elections! No Mulligans! No saving throws!

One has one chance to win the presidency. Amazingly, even if one cheats, the winner becomes POTUS.

If one disagrees, the constitution allows only two remedies.

1. Impeachment by a majority of the US House of Representatives followed by conviction by 2/3rds of the US Senate.

2. 25th Amendment. POTUS is declared to be incapable of doing his duty by the majority of cabinet officers, plus the VEEP.

Either way, VEEP becomes POTUS.

Neither one is likely to happen.

RESIST!

[diva77]

9. There is a federal court decision which invalidated election due to fraud and put opponent in office

In order to install Hillary, it would take something like elevating Marks v. Stinson to apply to presidential election

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-interference-could-give-courts-legal-authority_us_584be136e4b0151082221b9c
snip...at least one federal court decision suggests there may be some federal case law on the question of whether it is possible to invalidate the outcome of an election after the fact when there is fraud, and replace a candidate benefited by fraud with his opponent.

The 1993 state senate contest pitted Republican Bruce Marks against Democrat William G. Stinson. Stinson was named the winner, but was later accused of participating in a scheme with elections officials to commit election fraud. Namely, Stinson was accused of conspiring to cast illegally obtained absentee ballots in his favor.

In February 1994, after Stinson had already taken office, the federal judge ordered he “be removed from his State Senate office and that be certified the winner within 72 hours.”

Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce laws, and hurried to certify Stinson the winner in order to bury the story. To some, the narrative draws parallels to the Washington Post’s revelation that Republican Mitch McConnell was aware of the CIA’s conclusion that Russians had intervened and opted to do nothing...snip

Whatever became of that 4 member team of US Senators who were supposed to investigate the possibility of Russian interference prior to the Electoral College vote?