What is the right thing to do if it's determined that the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign?

[Baitball Blogger]

I know my position may not be a popular one, but, maybe it's because I grew up in a country where military dictators were the norm that I expect better from our country. If the Russians and Trump campaign are found to have colluded, then I believe the Trump presidency is illegitimate. If he is not the legitimate president, then the line of succession doesn't make sense. What does make sense is formally giving the position to the legitimate candidate.

Why are we afraid to "go there"? Just because there is no precedent? No offense, but that's not good enough. We put a man on the moon by being fearless. We are going to have to be fearless about correcting a great wrong.

[Blues Heron]

1. Impeach him

It's the only constitutional remedy

[lapfog_1]

2. We have no constitutional mechasim

To award the presidency to someone who came in second in the electoral college.

At this point what we should do is take back the house, impeach both trump and pence, convict and remove in the senate and then the speaker of the house becomes president.

[Orrex]

4. The fact that Republicans are taking no action against him...

and that they're actively working against taking any action against him, tells us either that they are completely beholden to Russia themselves, or else they have already stolen the 2018 election and therefore have no reason to fear electoral consequences for their inaction.

It is also entirely possible that both are true.

[Baitball Blogger]

18. This is the point of the post: What happens if the investigation determines

that Russian collusion did go as far as change ballot totals?

What if it turns out that he was not legitimately elected?

[MineralMan]

3. Elections are the final resource and the final check and balance.

That's why we have them every two years for the entire House of Representatives and every four years for the President.

If all else fails, our Constitution provides us with a way to replace all elected officials at the next election for that office.

Beyond Constitutional means, there is no way to affect the presidency, other than impeachment and removal, until the next election. The same is true for Congress.

But, we do have those elections, so I recommend getting to work on electing replacements right now.

[Orrex]

5. The final *legal* resource

I reject that other method as being morally repugnant, but it should be recognized that prominent Republicans were happy to suggested extra-Constitutional means of removing President Obama (a la Ted Nugent) and the then-candidate Hillary Clinton (a la Donald Trump).

We shouldn't ignore that option because we must be conscious of the fact that idiot racist fuckheads have already considered it for their own purposes.

[MineralMan]

12. Power gained illegitimately will always be illegitimate.

We must gain power in a legitimate and recognized way. We can do it, if we have the will to do it. The only real question is one of will.

There are no alternative methods that are legitimate.

[Orrex]

15. Yes, but...

Republicans have already gained power illegitimately, many times over.

I am confident that they will continue to do so regardless of our efforts to the contrary.

They control the congress and most governorships, they control the courts and the press, and they control the companies that own the voting machines. Illegitimate or not, they have a stranglehold on power, and they will do anything to keep it.

[MineralMan]

16. So, your answer is more illegitimacy?

No, thank you. My answer is solidarity and an overwhelming turnout by voters. Overwhelming. If we want legitimate change, that is what we will need to make happen.

How about we insist on a legitimate government? That's what I suggest.

[Orrex]

19. I believe that I called it "morally repugnant," so no.

However, I also observed that our opposition is rather more friendly toward illegitimate methods, so we must be conscious of them even as we mobilize our efforts toward legitimate ends.

[rock]

6. I agree

The trump presidency would be nullified. All activity that resulted from it should be backed off. A legitimate successor should be selected and we proceed from there.

[BigmanPigman]

34. Agree 1,000,000,000% Nullify and void the entire election

right down to the local dog catcher since people vote down ballot.

Make a new amendment, set a precedent, whatever is just an fair needs to be done. This is serious and the founding fathers would most likely agree. If other countries (Kenya just nullified theirs) did this we would support a do-over for them with no problem was so ever.

[Abouttime]

37. You've got the right idea

The entire election should be nullified
Perhaps the evidence could be taken to the Supreme Court, without gorsuch, as the court would be evenly divided. In this situation I assume all 4 progressive judges would vote to nullify the elections and it would only take one justice siding with the majority of Americans to overturn the illicit election results.
After the trump administration is removed we could persuade President Obama to come back and manage the transition to the legitimate President, Hillary Clinton.

[Hoyt]

7. If it is shown, Trump was directly involved, he should be impeached. I wish a re-election were

possible, but that is not going to happen. While it would be appropriate in Trump's case and give us some satisfaction, I don't think it would set a good precedent anyway.

Fact is, we have meddled in a lot of foreign elections, hacked and spied on our allies, etc. We should have been prepared for what happened in this election, but we weren't.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. I do think it's interesting that we were hoisted by our own petard.

Yes, we have meddled in foreign elections. Which brings up an observation that I had growing up in one of those countries. I didn't expect Americans who grew up Stateside to be so naive about so many things. I expected them to be more steeled against propaganda. I expected them to be more aware of the tools we used to destabilize other countries - at least to the point of recognizing it when it was happening here.

[leftstreet]

33. +1

That's my experience, too

But America is still a very young country. The exceptionalism will wear off and people will be less shy about staring reality in the eye

[Xolodno]

23. Correct. We weren't prepared.

Why? Going hazard a guess that one, we didn't think anyone had the capability; two, if they did, we didn't think they had the balls to do so and pay for any consequences.

Turns out Russia had the means, balls, willingness to pay AND gain heavily. And when I say "gain" I don't mean the cheeto in the office, I wouldn't be surprised if the Kremlin is the that eventually drops him. But they've gained on the international stage and diminished our standing in the world...so much so, its going to take a long time to recoup... and we were already having a hard time no thanks to W.

[Initech]

8. We need to hold our own Nuremburg style trials.

We need to know what they were thinking, what was going through their heads, to be able to allow an act of treason to happen on US soil. Everyone from Trump himself to McConnell to Ryan to Pence to Alex Jones, they need to testify their roles in carrying out treason on US soil.

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

[bettyellen]

11. I love this idea.

[Fluke a Snooker]

26. Legal execution by lynching after a one-day non-jury court proceeding. Sounds delicious.

While the fantasy is delicious, it's not something that DU should be promoting in my opinion.

[bettyellen]

28. I think a serious trial including all involved is in order.

That's not a lynching by any stretch. Aybe the closest thing we have is a RICO prosecution.

[Fluke a Snooker]

29. Then call it a RICO prosecution, not Nurenberg trial

Most major leaders were hung, which means executed.*

*I will actually refrain from the term "lynch," unless I'm using it for actual murders committed by whites over people of color by hanging, I apologize to all those who messaged me indicating as such.

[bettyellen]

30. You seem to be confusing the trial with the sentence handed out?

The post I responded to was about the type of trial. Different era, different crimes, different outcomes.
You're the only person who said a "one day trial and lynching", have no idea where you got the one day or the lynching from his post.

[Fluke a Snooker]

9. I don't think "being fearless" should be discussed here

Avocation of violence, even "subtly," shouldn't be necessary. We have several avenues to approach that don't approach violence to rid ourselves of the greatest threat against humanity since Christopher Columbus slaughtered indigenous populations.

[FreepFryer]

10. By Respecting & Upholding the Constitution. Nothing Else Works vs Russian Goal: Destabilization (nt)

[Amishman]

17. This! Breaking with the Constitution is the worst precedent we could set

Follow the impeachment process and trust in the People to vote accordingly next election. This is the only legitimate option.

[FreepFryer]

22. To follow the process, trust the People I'd add: punish the guilty & prevent more interference. (nt)

[Lurks Often]

13. Any new legal precedent used to remove Trump can & will be used against a Democratic President

Having said the above, Trump is not going to be impeached or removed from office.

[bearsfootball516]

20. THIS

Ever since the day Trump took office, I've heard people say "I think we're getting close to impeachment" or "There's no way he can survive this latest scandal."

I would love impeachment, but here's the cold, hard truth.


Trump is not getting impeached. He is not going to resign. He is going to serve four years, and if the Democrats don't get their message together, reach out to voters and run a good candidate, he will serve another four.

[delisen]

21. Fearless and Imaginative.

We need to focus not just on the "letter of the law" but also on the "spirit of the law."

The Constitution was not written with the intent that it should be a barrier achieving Justice yet many people seem to see it as such and immediately jump to the conclusion that nothing can be done because the Constitution says such and such.

Well, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that a majority leader in the Senate can devise a new rule that in the last year of a president's term the Senate must not carry out its role to advise and consent regarding the president's nominee to the Supreme Court.

Yet Mitch McConnell did exactly that. He refused to give Garland a hearing. It was a bold action that unfortunately succeeded in thwarting the intent of the Constitution.

I am interested in being as fearless and imaginative in the cause of Justice, in balancing the scales, as McConnell was in the cause of Injustice.

There is no need for us to go against the Constitution. But if Donald Trump is not a legitimate president, and Hillary is-we need to acknowledge the injustice and begin the process of setting things right.

[byronius]

24. Oh, it's a popular position with me.

It's the only correct response to a cowardly sneak attack from a hostile foreign power who bribed/kompromised at least half a major political party and informationally manipulated at least one third of our citizens in a calculated attempt to destroy us as a global entity.

We probably won't do that, because we are no longer the nation that put a man on the moon. We are a fearful, anxiety-ridden nation with a large segment of criminally psychopathic citizens; we've lost sight of what mass death looks like, and so we're all standing around watching while the least capable men/children tinker with the Self-Destruct control board.

I'd love it if we could avoid a major body count. History says no, but I have hope that we're better than history.

You are so very right, though. The Fearless and Strong act would be to utterly cast off all embedded operatives and ideological vestiges of this Great Catastrophe our mortal enemy has inflicted on us.

Never hated Russia before. Do now.

[JoeStuckInOH]

25. The right thing to do is follow the remedies proscribed by THE CONSTITUTION.

Basically, try to impeach him. The line of succession remains though because, other than subsequent impeachments, there is no constitutional tool or procedure to invalidate his appointees or any laws/policies put in place by Trump.

It's not that people are afraid to "go there"... but you can't remedy an unlawful situation or unconstitutionally punish someone who broke the law. There is no "redo" of presidential elections. Promoting lawlessness has nothing to do being fearless, and advocating unconstitutional actions or attempting to bestow powers unto a legislative or judicial body that aren't enumerated is definitely lawlessness.

[underthematrix]

27. The core of the investigation is about espionage

I expect him to be the first sitting president to be indicted for both espionage and obstruction of justice.

[trueblue2007]

31. TREASON .... and penalty to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

[world wide wally]

32. Just keep locking them up one by one until we get down to the maintenance man if we have to

[gratuitous]

38. Yup, that's my strategy: Next man up

The problem with a fearless and imaginative response is that there is no precedent or guideline. What determines whether someone's election is illegitimate? Who makes that determination? By what criteria? Once you start down the path of legally defining those standards, you might as well just go with the Constitution and case law. Otherwise, you set up an arbitrary standard of "I don't like the way that election turned out." How many people have to agree? A plurality? A majority? A super majority? How are those numbers going to be determined? Plebiscite? Poll by a "reputable" polling outfit?

[Native]

35. In countries all over the world when elections are deemed illegitimate,

they do something really novel - hold another election!

[Paladin]

36. That very thing just happened in Kenya.

Did you ever in your life predict you'd be envious of Kenya's electoral system? We are so profoundly fucked.....