URGENT IMMEDIATE ACTION needed: a chance for election do-over?

[RealityChik]

I'm new here so not very good at posting new stuff yet. Apparently, the constitution allows a nullification of an illegal election. Done through petition to th Supreme Court. This has been done. The hearing is on Feb 21st, but doesn't yet have wide public support. I found it by accident at:

@revote2017 on Twitter

"Writ of Mandamus on SCOTUS docket to NULLIFY 2016 pres election because of Russian interference." Has already been filed and updated.

And at http://revote2017.org for info and a link to the petition on change.org

Sorry for exposing my "newbieness" with this post. This is urgency at all costs, including my embarrassment for being so clueless about DU formatting. If any of you DU Masters can formulate a better call-to-action post, please have at it!

Almost forgot: Needs another 900+ petition signatures YESTERDAY (and donations if you can swing it)

[Wounded Bear]

1. I'm pretty sure there is no precedent for this...

It's good press for us on the left, but I doubt that it will go anywhere.

There is only two processes to constitutionally remove the president, impeachment or 25th Amendment, Section 4. Frankly, I kind of doubt the USSC will even hear this suit.

[hack89]

2. Pretty meaningless

The SC only takes a tiny fraction of the cases filed with it. The legal bar to file a writ is very low - it was a favorite tactic of the Birthers and we all know how that turned out.

[MineralMan]

3. No action will result in a new election for President.

There is no pathway to that. Period. If the election were nullified, Pence would become President. You may remember that he was elected to be vice-president by the Electoral College and in a separate vote.

In any case, the Supreme Court is not going to actually hear that case, even though it is on the docket. Why? Because there is nothing in the Constitution that allows a presidential election to be nullified. It's all very simple, really. We hold presidential elections every four years. Once the Electoral College has voted and Congress accepts that vote, it's over.

Please don't waste your time on this. It doesn't matter how many signatures the petition gets. Petitions carry zero weight.

[RealityChik]

8. Not true!

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2017, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

A Writ of Mandamus nullifies an election and removes an entire cabinet. Impeachment only removes the president but we're stuck with the rest of the criminal cabal, aka Trump cabinet, as in ALL OF THEM.

Sweden had a do-over. Even the Ukraine got a do-over. So why can't the United States of America act on a clause in our constitution to nullify and re-do our illegal, tampered with election?

All it takes is the political will by the people to do so. Do we not have that anymore? Please consider this today and send me to the dunk tank for a laugh tomorrow. Just give this a moment of your time.

Correction: Austria, not Sweden, conducting a revote in the fall of 2017, although not with the objective we are looking for...in fact, just the opposite. But still, shows that it's been done legitimately by other countries, so why not ours?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/01/new_vote_to_be_held_in_norbert_hofer_austrian_presidential_election.html

[MineralMan]

10. You appear not to understand what a Writ of Mandamus is:

To help you, here's a link to a fairly simple explanation of that legal term. It has really nothing to do with nullification of elections in this country. I assure you that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear arguments in that case.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus

As for your second point, the United States is neither Sweden or Ukraine. Our system of government and how it governs is completely different than in those two nations. Why can't we nullify a presidential election? Because there is no mechanism in our system of government to do that. Our Constitution governs presidential elections. Everything needed to know about them is included in that document. No mention of nullification exists.

The people, indeed, can change the government. They can change Presidents. Every four years we vote on who will become our President, as described in the Constitution. That is our control over our own government. However, once we do that and elect a President, only the Congress can remove that President. That's also in the Constitution.

I highly recommend a careful reading of the Constitution, including all of its amendments. A careful reading. A reading that makes an attempt to understand what is written there.

[RealityChik]

12. You are right about my ignorance...

On the subject, and I usually do more research on a subject before posting, but the court review is NEXT TUESDAY! I'm willing to risk embarrassment for my cluelessness on this occasion because of the urgency. Note that I am as skeptical as the rest of you but after being scared to death by the latest findings by Adam Khan posted on his Twitter account @khanoisseur last night, I'm willing to try just about any legal opportunities, no matter how untested or deeply buried in our constitution they may be.

For me at this point of now, semantics have to be "trumped" (pun intended) by expediency...

And a giant leap of faith.

[dumbcat]

16. Have you ever read the Constitution?

It's pretty short, and it's on-line for review. It shouldn't take but a few minutes to do a search and review it. Please point to the paragraph in the Constitution that allows such a "do over."

Thank you.

[AgadorSparticus]

61. Sometimes, you have to think out of the box. And these are exceptional times.

Welcome to DU!

[RealityChik]

4. To all doubters: Please review the case before dissing it.

Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it's not credible. Our democracy has been hijacked. Nobody with the power to stop it wants to do anything about it. It's all up to us. Even if this looks like chasing unicorns and rainbows, isn't it worth a try when the only other option is a dictatorship by 'President Bannon', who is more dangerous than we realize?

Tar and feather me tomorrow, but please at least take a look at this as a viable option. As a nation, we're running out of time and are almost out of options to save ourselves.

[MichMary]

17. Our democracy has not been "hijacked."

Donald Trump was elected according to the terms of the Constitution, just as has been every president in the past. He got the most votes in the Electoral College. That's it.

You may not like what he is doing, but it doesn't change the fact that he is the Constitutionally elected POTUS.

[eniwetok]

51. ROTF... a president REJECTED by the People IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

Yes, our democracy has not been "hijacked" because our system permits RULE BY THE MINORITY... and therefore is ANTIdemocratic.

[Achilleaze]

64. Well, that's what the russians claim

But honest Americans have no reason to trust what Ronald Reagan called the "Evil Empire."

Likewise, the republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief has given honest Americans no reason to trust him.

So you can buy into the russian explanation of Pee45's having lost the election by 3 million votes, but having successfully wanked the electoral count to "claim" victory.

But you should not be surprised if it turns out that the republicans and the russians have pulled a Casino-Values Coup on you, and you have been royally SUCKERED.

[bench scientist]

26. I'm in law school there is NO legal remedy proscribed in the U.S.Constitution to nullify an election

You can only ask the Court to enforce recognized legal rights.
The laws would need to be changed at a Constitutional level for this to happen.
It's not going to happen anytime soon.
We are in for a very, very long fight against Trump and his deplorables. It's going to be ugly and brutal.

[diva77]

50. I have posted this Marks v. Stinson precedent from Federal court before -- any thoughts?

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?

[drm604]

5. How does the constitution allow this?

I'm skeptical, to say the least. Do you have a cite?

[RealityChik]

11. Not a cite, but a [web] site link in my original post...

Here it is again:

Http://www.revote2017.org

The writ has been updated to include a special investigation that is out of the hands of the administration AND Congress and is appointed by the courts.

As for citations and endorsements, view the Twitter account @Revote2017. Links to more convincing and comprehensive information are abundant there too. I landed there accidentally from an investigative Twitter account @khanoisseur of one brave investigator into the Trump criminal cabal, Adam Khan.

[WillowTree]

15. OK. Now cite a passage.......any passage.......in the Constitution that allows for this.

I'm not going to go looking for it. If you can cite anything in the Constitution or any of the amendments that would permit such a thing, please do so yourself, but don't expect other people to research your argument for you.

Hint: There isn't one.

[RealityChik]

23. I trusted the website...

about constitutionality, but my bad for shooting first, asking questions later!

[MyMission]

6. thanks for the update

I read about this initiative a while back. Their website is good, explains how they have reorganized. We must support this and fight for our rights at every turn. Attack on many fronts.
Calling and writing letters, attending protests, rallies, meetings, are some things we can all be doing.
Those who have legal expertise are pursuing various avenues. Something may stick, or pierce and deflate if we keep throwing our disapproval and our numbers at "them"

[RealityChik]

20. Thanks for giving it some thought and...

Some of your time to considerate this.

Although I wonder if the recent coupling of an investigation request WITH a revote request was a good idea at this late date. Might add too much complexity for a favorable decision on both options at once? Simplicity would seem to be the most viable path to a favorable decision? Your thoughts?

[MyMission]

31. this is war

I truly believe we must attack on many fronts. File papers to question the legitimacy of the election, to question 45's sanity, loyalty, financial connections. Bog them down, in litigation and discovery motions.We must also continue to protest and call and write letters to our reps and to.blogs, editors, and social media. They want us to STFU, accept, and believe their lies. we will not! We must persist, resist.

My background is in psychology and statistics. I feel and see that our reaction(outrage) is far greater than the tea party. There are more of us. Sometimes I think of this movement as the new moral majority. We are the.moral ones. The election numbers were 46.1% voted for the guy who got elected, and 53.9% did Not vote for him. Of the 46%, about 1/3 regret it, leaving about 30% of deplorables who really support him, and 9-10% who don't approve but still reply that they do when they are polled. So 39% approve, from a recent poll, but at least 50% disapprove of the direction our country is going. Its going in directions we've never imagined.
A president and his administration comitting treason?!?! A crazy narcissist in office?!
We must keep up the fight. Litigation is one of the few things that 45 knows he.must accept the outcome. We need to.keep hammering back at.him (them).

[butdiduvote]

7. Eh, I signed up and signed the petition

Not overly confident this will amount to anything, but I support the making of waves to remind this administration how much people do not support it.

[RealityChik]

9. Agreed. A long shot...

Especially given the fact that too many doubters think it's "pie-in-the-sky". Thanx for giving this a few moments of your time.

Need I remind anyone that in 1776, all of Europe thought that the United States of America as a new nation was also considered a "pie-in-the-sky"?

Hurl virtual pies at me tomorrow but consider this today!

[lunamagica]

13. There is no need for a new election. Hillary won, period. She needs to be sworn as POTUS

[RealityChik]

24. I wish with all my heart...

it were that easy!

[WillowTree]

14. Again? This "do over" bullshit will never, ever end.

This isn't the third grade and there are not election "do overs". There is no constitutional basis for such a thing.

[RealityChik]

18. Got any other suggested solutions?

Austria and Ukraine have or are doing it. Ireland is working on one and since Putin interference in Brexit is suspected, the U.K. is working on a Brexit revote as well.

It's clear that neither the Trump administration or Congress will do nothing about it. Or by the time the Dems look into it, Flynn, Carter, Stone, Trump and Putin will have destroyed all the evidence and murdered anyone who could spill the beans and out the criminals.

So, if, We, the People, don't have the political will to save ourselves by exhausting every possible avenue we have to protect our country by any means possible, no matter how remote or unprecedented, what do you propose we do? I'm open to any and all suggestions as long as they don't involve cut-and-run.

[WillowTree]

21. Neither Austria nor Ukraine nor Ireland nor the UK live under the terms of our Constitution.

And there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that allows for this.

This "do over" nonsense crops up here at least once a week (and this isn't the first time in the last week) and the supporters such as yourself can never give constitutional justification for it. I asked you earlier to provide any citation from that document that would support what you're suggesting and you have yet to provide same.

All grasping at straws ever got anyone was a handful of straws.

He is the president. The only.......only.......recourses now are either impeachment and conviction or the 25th amendment. Pursuing anything else now is just a waste of time and energy.

[RealityChik]

27. this "do-over" appeared to be unique...

only because if it were possible to do this, the option to bypass Congress and the Administration to act as citizens to have the entire cabinet removed asap, as an alternative to impeachment, which only would remove Trump, but we'd be stuck the rest of his cronies and sycophants for the remainder of the term.

I have no interest in having Hillary as President. It doesn't even HAVE to be a Democrat, altho I prefer it of course. I just want Loser-in-Chief Trump and "His-Hatefulness" Bannon gone before they carry out a coup and turn us into a police state.

Am I forgiven?

[WillowTree]

30. Nothing to forgive, really.

You come across as sincere and you were just looking for a way. And you're probably unaware that one "do over" scheme or another has been popping up on DU since about mid-morning on November 9th.

No harm. No foul.

Welcome to DU. I hope that your stay is a pleasant one.

[chimpymustgo]

36. Thank you so much for at least TRYING! I'm amazed we're not flooding the courts with lawsuits -

the courts are our only chance!

I doubt we'll ever be able to prove anything - but let's not just wait till 2018 - for them to steal it AGAIN.

Welcome to DU!

[RealityChik]

44. thanx a bunch...

For giving this issue a few moments of your time to consider. If we can keep brainstorming our way out of this mess, maybe one of these citizen lawsuits will stick!

I guess now is a great time to be a lawyer, eh? The field was all but stagnant until this nightmare began. Law school attendance has been steadily decreasing and young lawyers were complaining about a flooded market of job applicants.

I imagine the judges are stressed to the max and completely exhausted, though.

[BzaDem]

40. 1. Put pressure on Congress to check him. 2. Replace Congress in 2018. 3. Replace him in 2020.

Others in the thread have already explained how our Constitution does not allow for "do-overs." This would be true even if there was unmistakable evidence of high treason from Trump on down. The Constitution does allow for impeachment of the President, and temporary removal through the 25th amendment. But short of the kind of overt lawbreaking that would turn his own party against him, he will serve out at least one term in office.

Furthermore, this isn't some sort of accidental defect in the formulation of the Constitution. Respect for electoral outcomes is essential to any democracy. The bar is very high for overturning such outcomes (broad bipartisan support to do so), as it needs to be in order to have a functioning democracy.

Imagine a world where what you propose could have any chance of succeeding -- a world where the opposition party (through courts or other institutions) could unilaterally overturn an election. Such a world could not have meaningful elections. Every transfer of power would be prone to violence -- if such transitions of power happened at all. Elections are the only mechanism that both sides agree will bind them, even if they lose. Without a mechanism to encourage peaceful acceptance by the opposition, power disputes would be settled by force.

[RealityChik]

48. Actually The Constitution does allow for it...

After reading the case and commentary at several law websites covering the entire affair, I read that since there is no precedent for this whole cyber interference, the only thing SCOTUS CAN do is nullify the election and call for a do-over. In case you were never able to slog through to my more informed posts later in the day, below is a partial cut and paste of that later post called "SCOTUS To Decide Whether to Here the Case on Feb 21st":

"The main argument for the writ is that, as per the U.S. Constitution, it is the responsibility of the federal government to keep U.S. territory safe from foreign invasion. The petition cites evidence of such an invasion, that is, the Russian hacking" of an undetermined number of government, state and political organization servers, before, during and after the 2016 Election cycle. Therefore the petition "asks that the entire 2016 election be nullified, on the grounds that cyber-territory in the U.S. was invaded with the intention of altering the results of our 2016 Presidential election. The petitioners are seeking an entirely new election."

"Per Title 28 of the U.S. Code § 1251, SCOTUS has 'original jurisdiction' over cases like this due to the involvement of a foreign state. There is no remedy for the foreign cyber-invasion, they argue, other than complete nullification."

And if such a "do-over" becomes a reality, can you imagine the chaos it will bring?

[BzaDem]

56. The SCOTUS could not nullify the election even if it was conceded that the vote was rigged.

You say the Constitution grants this power, but you provide no evidence. You don't quote the Constitution at all (instead paraphrasing a section about foreign invasions, leaving out the fact that it is the executive that is responsible for repelling such invasions, not the judiciary), and the one section of US law you quote (not the Constitution) simply states a completely banal legal point about original jurisdiction.

Quite simply, even if there was a video tape of the vote being rigged (there is no evidence of any kind), and even if that had anything to do with the concept of an "invasion" (it doesn't), the Supreme Court has zero power to remedy the situation. The electoral college has already voted, and those votes were already counted by Congress.

Prior to the vote counting by Congress, the Supreme Court could rule that the vote counting in a state was not in accordance with state or federal law. But even in that case, a state legislature could just pass a bill directly appointing Republican electors.

After Congress counts the electoral votes, there is no judicial remedy of any kind. The Constitution expressly assigns the task of counting the electoral votes to Congress. Even if Congress decided to ignore the electoral votes from the states and declare Trump the victor of the count (even if he got no electoral votes), the judiciary STILL would have no role to play. Such a move would certainly prompt a constitutional crisis, but the judiciary would not play a role in resolving it.

If the judiciary would have no power even in a black and white case of Congress ignoring unambiguous results of an election, it certainly would have no power to do anything in this case (where the results clearly indicated a Trump win, and were respected).

[RealityChik]

49. The brits are even wondering if Putin interfered with BREXIT too...

I wish I had bookmarked the article stating that. Will have to go back through my browser history to find a link. Apparently the UK is watching our whole situation very carefully. If it turns out our election is nullified by SCOTUS, they may want to initiate a similar solution!!!

[brooklynite]

19. "Writ of Mandamus"...

A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.

Please define the official duties (relating to the Election) that were not carried out:

1. The Electoral College was selected (Art. 2, Sec 1.2)

2. The Electoral College met and voted (Art 2. Sec 1.3)

3. The House and Senate met to tally and certify the Electoral College vote (Art 2. Sec 1.3)

4. The President took office on January 20th (Amend 20)

[RealityChik]

25. Your response is duly noted...

and appreciated. My blunder, for sure. Lesson learned.

[Yupster]

28. Could a court order Trump to

stop being a complete moron and start properly fulfilling your official duties?

Wouldn't accomplish anything, but it would look great on parchment.

[RealityChik]

22. Let the Tar-and-Feathering Begin!!!!

Consider me rightfully embarrassed...chock it up to newbie initiation ritual, maybe? Trial by fire?

The matter is still urgent and sure looks good at first glance, but, upon closer examination, it likely doesn't apply without action from a lower court or maybe not at all, from the looks of it.

In spite of this here mea culpa to you all, I have no regrets about having asked you all take a quick look at revote2017.org to either sign the petition or not. Hopefully, no harm done. No mornings wasted. No chores or children neglected. No zombie apocalypse...

So, now you can all have yourselves a glorious LOL-I-told-you-so moment on me! Send me to the dunk tank or pelt me with virtual pies! Your choice.

I'm ready.

[ElkeH]

29. Your heart was in the right place

It is just that the possibility of a "do over" has been brought up several times here in recent past, even though it keeps being pointed out there is actually nothing that would allow for another Presidential election before 2020. Then again, some people also think if Trump were removed from office, naturally his replacement would be the runner-up in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton.

The reality is Trump will be POTUS until 2020 unless he resigns or is impeached, in which case Pence would become President. Should he resign or be impeached, the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, is next on the list. There is no chance of HRC becoming POTUS before 2020. You would have to have Trump appoint a Democrat to a high position and have an incredible number in the line of succession become President and leave the office again before a Democrat would have the chance to become POTUS within the next four years.

[RealityChik]

41. I kinda wish...

We could just remove trump and his whole band of criminals, then install Joe Biden and be done with it!

Even if SCOTUS does decide to hear that case and nullifies the election, can you imagine the chaos that will ensue? I read the entire petition last night and it made my head spin.

At this point I am so exhausted by all the drama, signing on to the Mars expedition is looking pretty good right about now!!!

[MFM008]

32. I get it

We want him gone in the worst way.
Impeachment/ removal by 25th amendment is now the only way.

Oh unless he has a bad accident or.....stops breathing for a long time.....

[RealityChik]

34. or explodes from all the fast food he's eating!

According to @AngryWHStaffer on Twitter, Trump is stuffing himself on junk food and gorging on donuts all day long!

Think he might be nervous about something?

[RealityChik]

62. But at least you gave the idea...

A thoughtful moment of your time. It was all I asked for.

And you're right...I'm open to any possible means of removing not only Trump but more so, his entire cabinet. Impeachment only rids us of Trump. As bad as he is...I believe he is harmless compared to his deadly cabal of appointees. With or without him, his cabinet is far more dangerous.

[RealityChik]

33. SCOTUS Weighing Decision to hear case on Nullifying Election is due 2-21-17

Remember the petition for a Writ of Mandamus I asked for signatures on this morning? OK...So, I've calmed down and now I've got my s*** together..

Here you go:

The Constitution of the United States, per Article IV § 4, stipulates:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state of this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion."

https://analysisanddiscourse.com/ states:
"The main argument for the writ is that, as per the U.S. Constitution, it is the responsibility of the federal government to keep U.S. territory safe from foreign invasion. The petition cites evidence of such an invasion, that is, the Russian hacking" of an undetermined number of government, state and political organization servers, before, during and after the 2016 Election cycle. Therefore the petition "asks that the entire 2016 election be nullified, on the grounds that cyber-territory in the U.S. was invaded with the intention of altering the results of our 2016 Presidential election. The petitioners are seeking an entirely new election."

Per Title 28 of the U.S. Code § 1251, SCOTUS has “original jurisdiction” over cases like this due to the involvement of a foreign state. There is no remedy for the foreign cyber-invasion, they argue, other than complete nullification.

An update of the petition is now also requesting that the court appoint a "Special Master, with the immunities, security classifications, subpoena powers, staffing and reasonable funding" to conduct an independent investigation of the intrusions and determine the culpability of persons involved. (Uh-oh, look out Congress Repubs!!!)

From: http://progressivearmy.com/2017/01/20/ginsburg-weighing-decision-hear-case-possible-russian-hacking-election/

"A response is due from SCOTUS on February 21 with an answer as to whether the Court will hear oral arguments in this case. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg is currently reviewing the case. The fact that this petition for a writ of mandamus is even being considered is quite remarkable."

More at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/12/1632869/-Petition-Before-SCOTUS-Seeks-To-Nullify-Election

[PoliticAverse]

35. I suspect you'll be getting a RealityCheck soon. n/t

[RealityChik]

42. Won't we all be?

If SCOTUS decides to take the case and nullifies the election, can you imagine the chaos that may follow!!! Reality check indeed.

[chimpymustgo]

37. I've wondered it states like CA could sue the EC for lack of equal representation.

As it stands, voters in Wyoming and other small states get "more" votes per capita than voters in CA. There is inherent inequality in the apportionment of voters.

Thoughts on that?

[BzaDem]

39. That inherent inequality is mandated by the Constitution.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

Furthermore, the very purpose of the Senate was to ensure that small states have disproportionate power relative to their population.

Something explicitly mandated by the Constitution is by definition not unconstitutional.

[PoliticAverse]

53. They also get more "Senators per capita" but that's a provision of the Constitution also...

and won't be overturned either.

The people making the Constitution didn't want the President to be elected by popular vote.

If anything the way is is done now with the popular vote having the prime influence and electors
almost never picking someone else is the unconstitutional aspect.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

38. The only way we can be rid of him is to put pressure on Congress. Like a national strike/boycott

where the rich and corporations start to lose money.

[RealityChik]

43. Congress will do nothing!

With Repubs in control, they will stall and stall. They won't dump Trump until they trash Medicare, Social Security, abortion rights, women's reproductive rights, yada, yada, yada!

We, the People just can't wait for Congress to do anything anymore. If we don't act to save ourselves, nobody else is going to do it for us.

[Hekate]

47. Not this again. No. This is not a thing. Please join INDIVISIBLE for reality-based action....

....and genuine facts on how to make change happen. Look them up.

This board has had people go round and round on this subject and it has been explored -- and explained -- to the nth degree.

[Softail1]

52. this

..ok, I've lurked enough...this crap has to stop..it's a waste of good energy. There is zero-none-nada- possibility of this happening, no matter how exotically it's phrased....get to work on reality based solutions, or suffer the consequences.. there are no do-overs in Presidential politics....period!

[Hekate]

54. Welcome to DU, Softail1. We live in interesting times.

[RealityChik]

58. Why can't I do both?

And not WHAT again? It's clear that the Republicans are working overtime to bury any chance of an investigation. I'm convinced that a full investigation is NOT going to come from Congress. We, the People, have to exhaust ALL efforts to deploy an independent investigation to expose any and all interference into our last election, even if it only helps us restore the integrity of THE NEXT election. And if Trump and his cabal are guilty of tampering with the election, I want them gone.

I, for one, do not feel limited to a single solution. This effort involves the Supreme Court, and it has now been advanced with a favorable possibility that the Supreme Court will give it a full hearing. Am I pinning my hopes on its success? Hell no. It is only one of many calls-to- action that are getting my support. I have just moved to a new area that is a 45 minute drive from the nearest town, and almost 2 hours away from the nearest Indivisible group in Seattle. When the time is right, and I meet a few like minded local Democrats, I'll start my own chapter.

[Hekate]

59. Read the answers to your OP. THERE ARE NO DO-OVERS of presidential elections in this country

People are explaining it very clearly, and you keep saying "Yes, but" and variations on the theme of "Sorry, but," and just going right back to your original position.

This is tedious. We are getting a flood of newbies (welcome to DU) proposing the same things. People here are explaining the realities of the situation over -- and over -- and over.

We feel your pain. You have no idea how much we feel your pain. We have members here who got physically ill in the week leading up to Election Day. It has been Hell.

Many of us here are experienced political activists. We have outcomes we want more than anything. We can and we will work for those outcomes. What we don't want is to spin our wheels uselessly in the mud of things that are guaranteed to fail.

[Stinky The Clown]

55. You're new here and your post is 100% wrong. Try self deleting.

[RealityChik]

57. Are you sure about that?

Maybe you should check out a post from TaraWhite on the DU Home page under TRENDING NOW. It may still result in no action, but at least the Supreme Court is now considering a full hearing of the case.

THE SUPREME COURT JUST ADVANCED A LAWSUIT TO NULLIFY THE 2016 ELECTION

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/23/supreme-court-just-advanced-law-suit-nullify-2016-election/

I may be new here, but I wasn't born yesterday. My original post asked people to follow a link to this petition, and if they supported the effort to sign the petition. There wasn't anything to be right or wrong about!

Next time, read 100% of a post and try a little self-restraint before flinging baseless insults. We're all on the same team here and we're all expected to be respectful adults, or so I thought...

BTW, I accept your apology for the undeserved SNARK.

[Hekate]

60. Stinky owes you no apologies

[MineralMan]

65. Whatever do you mean by that?

I'll wait right here.

[Hekate]

66. While I was laughing at that she apparently received a small Reality Check

Now she'll have to start a new thread.

[MineralMan]

67. Ah, good.

You Greek goddess, you.