Calls Grow For A New Presidential Election To Be Held After Russia Meddled To Help Trump

[ffr]

It is finally being said out loud, in public, on national television. America may need to hold a new presidential election after Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump.

Former CIA Operative Robert Baer brought up the idea of holding a new election during an appearance on CNN:

Baer said, “The Russians, it looks like to me did interfere in our elections. We’ll never be able to decide whether they changed the outcome, but I’ll tell you having worked in the CIA if we had been caught interfering in European elections, or Asian elections, or anywhere in the world, those countries would call for new elections. Any democracy would. I mean, I don’t see it any other way. The Electoral College before the nineteenth has got to know whether the Russians had an effect, Whether they went to Wikileaks, whether they hacked email, and whether they affected American opinion. They had a good reason to go after Hillary Clinton. Putin hates her for the Ukraine.

Baer added, “When a foreign country interferes in your election and the outcome is in doubt and the legitimacy of the government. I don’t know how it works constitutionally. I’m not a lawyer, constitutional lawyer, but I’m deeply disturbed by the fact that the Russians interfered, and I would like to see the evidence, because if the evidence is there, I don’t see any other way than to vote again.”
<snip>

The American electoral process has been compromised, and the only way out this mess is an Electoral College vote that elects Hillary Clinton or a whole new election. - PoliticusUSA

This has made a lot of high ranking officials uneasy. I'd love to know what's stirring in Washington overnight.

[gordianot]

1. Unless you participate in the majority party in Congress your opinion does not count.

[putitinD]

11. Maybe a National Strike is in order!

[longship]

2. Note: Baer says he is not a lawyer, constitutional lawyer.

But one does not need to be a lawyer to know that there is no legal way to nullify a presidential election with a do over. It just doesn't exist.

We have three tools for a disputed election, none of which include revoting.

1. Electoral college could turn faithless.

2. With no majority in the electoral college, congress (one vote per state) decides the president.

3. Impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate can remove a sitting president.

Then, there's the 25th amendment solution, sometimes mentioned here these days. That would require that his cabinet abandon him. Does anybody think that can realistically happen short of Drumpf becoming somehow physically incapacitated?

Could any of these options realistically happen?

My thinking is no. We are stuck with this ignorant, pussy-grabber. That's what I have come to think.

[C Moon]

3. I agree with you. It's nice hearing these options coming to light,

but deep down inside, I know Trump will become President.
And fuck I hate saying that.

Election night, I turned off all media when I saw Clinton's percentages dropping on 538 (around 7:00pm).
Around 8:30pm I heard one of my Tea Bag neighbor's hoot.
At midnight, I went back online and looked at Clinton's website: nothing.
I didn't want to go to any news sources, and DU was down, so I decided to look at Wikipedia for "Presidents of the U.S."
There I saw a photo of Trump sitting just below Obama's.
It was like a nightmare. I didn't sleep that night.

The nightmare continues.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. It's a nightmare alright... keep thinkin I'm going to wake up from it, only to encounter another day in hell.

[lapucelle]

27. I went through the same nightmare, but I was at the Javits Center.

As my husband and I walked from Penn Station, we saw that every other concrete square of the sidewalk had been painted with a stencil of Hillary's face and the hashtag #hillyeah.

I still can't look at the pictures I took.

[2naSalit]

8. Then there's the fourth option

though I don't want to see one... revolt of We the People. That's a negative but it is a possibility, a horrible one.

[longship]

9. I deliberately avoided mentioning that one.

As should everybody here. Please self-delete.

Nobody wants that.

My regards, just the same.

[Paladin]

16. "Nobody wants that"? Speak for yourself. (nt)

[longship]

17. I stand by my posts here. nt

[Calista241]

19. Revolt would be spectacularly unsuccessful

1. They own the majority of the guns
2. The military and police are solidly behind Trump
3. The VAST majority of Americans just want government to function, and not rock the boat too much. Most of them have a family and a job, and that is 90% of what they care about.

DU has what, 10k members in total, and maybe 2k that post regularly? We are some of the most highly partisan people in the US, and our views do not necessarily represent the rest of the citizenry.

I mean seriously, probably less than 20m people in our country watch the news or read a news article about anything on a daily basis. If all of those people were on our side, how do you expect them to convince the remaining 90% of our population to support a an armed insurrection?

[libtodeath]

20. 3 million more voted for Hillary.

[Calista241]

21. So what? Everyone votes for a losing candidate at some point in their lives.

Just because my candidate lost doesn't mean I'm going to take up arms and start threatening or killing people. And the vast, vast majority of our countrymen feel the same way.

If that was going to happen as a result of the election, it would have already happened. Do you think people are going to revolt during Christmas? It's winter outside right now. How many people that would be needed for this revolt, would instead stay home in the heat?

[libtodeath]

22. I am just saying that we are not outnumbered.

[radius777]

44. Peaceful resistance would be successful,

especially if it is on a massive scale.

Hillary was the people's choice, she won by millions of votes and would've won by millions more if not for Comey (which speaks to your point about biased law enforcement) and voter suppression.

[Calista241]

52. I don't.

There's no mechanism, or historical precedent, to replace a duly elected candidate with another. And there is ample precedent for an electoral college winner to be seated over a popular vote winner.

Peaceful resistance may moderate some of the political stances that the administration adopts, but that wouldn't happen for some time.

And if there's one thing Trump understands, it's marketing. He'll make sure to have some very public early wins like the Carrier thing.

[radius777]

57. True, it won't stop him from being president

and likely won't force him out, but massive public pressure could severely cripple him, especially as GOP congress/senate people flee from his agenda, fearing for their own futures.

Trump does indeed 'get' marketing and knows how to play the media and the public, like a late-night infomercial salesman, or a cartoonish wrestling villain.

But I think (or at least I hope) this works better in the hyper-competitive context of a campaign, which is covered by the complicit media like a reality show, which plays well with large segments of our brain-dead public.

But in the context of governing, and being the one in charge, I'm not sure how well this plays.

We'll have to see, I guess.

[onenote]

5. Robert Baer, unknown to 99 percent of the population

doesn't equal a groundswell of support for redoing the election. There can't be a re-do under our Constitution and there won't be.

That Trump is the president-elect and will be inaugurated next month sucks. But desperate grasping at straws about how it might not happen is a waste of time that should better be spent strategizing about how to slow down/stop/frustrate his agenda.

[TheFrenchRazor]

6. absolutely, but we need all paper ballots, all hand-counted. nt

[putitinD]

12. paper ballots hand counted TWICE, just to make sure EVERY vote is counted correctly.

[yuiyoshida]

7. You do realize, if Trump is removed..

His base will burn this country to the ground, and the next Bloody Civil War will begin. I just hope that if it does, like the last one, California stays out of it.

[oberliner]

10. Maybe people should read the Constitution

Because this is not how it works.

[BSdetect]

36. You are shackled to a deeply flawed piece of paper.

[oberliner]

37. What are you suggesting?

Disregard the Constitution?

[jberryhill]

53. One which defines the position of president

If you don't want the US government to be "shackled" to a piece of paper, then perhaps you might explain what it is you are upset about?

Absent the process defined by that piece of paper, there is no "presidency" about which to be concerned.

[TheHak]

13. This will never happen

Ut everything has to be done to protect future elections

[Kotya]

14. FFS, do they even teach anything...

...remotely resembling civics in school these days?

[if..fish..had..wings]

15. My 2 cents

Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2016, 10:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I really don't get it, people. I really do not.

The interference everyone is inferring is irrelevant.
This was dissemination of information for general consumption. We already know that we have a triple problem.
Bad information, rumor-mongering, outright lies being passed unchecked as real. This has been going on since Fox News went on the air. Long before the 'fake news' on the internets.
A public uneducated and unwilling to investigate claims has been a growing problem for decades. Conservatives in the 70's identified an informed public as their enemy and have been attempting to dismantle the education system in the US ever since, and quite successfully. They started by taking over school boards, the textbook approval process and on and on.
The media failing to do its job began with the acceptance of the myth of a 'liberal media' in repsonse to Nixon's resignation. So, conservatives dismantle it, corrupt it, and corporatize it. Been there done that, back in the 80's. Look at the coverage of Bill Clinton's "horrible offences". The media has been a conservative lap-dog for a long time.

Adding in the information the Russians "hacked" and it does not really make any difference. If the elephant is sitting on your head, having a mouse climb on top does not effect anything.


Now as to the issue with the EC. Yes, the original intent for the EC (other than the preservation of slavery, gad how that still infects our entire nation) was to have "wiser heads" in charge of electing the President to prevent a person popular with the public but unfit for office assuming the powers of the position.
It is true that they seem a toothless lot now, totally uninvolved in the process simply rubber-stamping the results. It is also true that various states have attempted to pass state laws to override the constitution and force electors to vote for the winner of their state.
Let's assume, though, that the electors actually did their job. The candidate who won the popular vote, that "person popular with the public" was Clinton. As a large portion of the population, including many on the left, believe that HRC is unfit for office, the EC is doing what the founders intended, preventing an unfit person from assuming the powers even though they won the popular vote.
Reading the origins and constitutional constraints of the EC, it would seem to me that there is nothing in Trump's past to indicate that he would not be able to be President.
I despise the man. I disagree with virtually every word he has spoken. I expect the future to be disasterous and bleak. I believe his followers will turn on him.
But his actions, in particular putting the foxes in charge of the hen-house, are exactly what the Republicans have been doing for 30 years. This is nothing new.
Dismanteling social programs has been the Repubs bread and butter for ages. Nothing new.
Lying to his followers in order to win their vote is so common in elections as to be laughable.
Having no previous policial experience is not either. That phrase is usually 'previous political or military experience' as if having been in the military indicates one is more qualified than is a businessman.

Another thing, and this has bothered me for years. There are many on the left who actually put in physical and mental effort into politics. They write letters, they go to protests, they hold town meetings to educate the public. But the vast majority do not. Oh, they may show up for a "don't invade Iraq" protest, they may donate to a party or candidate, but they are not involved in the brick and mortar, boots on the pavement, type of politics.
Many, not all, but many keep thinking that someone out there is going to save us. If only Bernie won, if only the EC would do their job, if only... As if we are thinking some one person could make that big a difference. They are looking for a savior, a messiah, some mythical populist who can rally the troops and get the job done. Gee, sort of like the Trump voters who think he can bring back jobs.

We should not be looking to the EC to save us, or a mythical 'do-over'.
If you look at polls over the last 50 years that ask people about specific issues, you will see time and again most Americans are liberal in the policies. They don't want war. They want to feed the hungry. They would love free education. They would applaud shutting down the health insurance industry. They would cheer seeing millionaire wall street types being put in prison. They want to preserve the national parks. They want higher wages.
They honestly mostly don't give a crap about abortion, gay marriage, legal pot... They really don't.
We could go on and on. I have believed for a long time that individual Americans are liberal, 80% to 20% is the split.

Look at the gerrymandered-to-death congress talking about privatizing Social Security and Medicare. Those who voted for Trump thinking he would improve their economic situation don't want that. They would oppose this if they understood it. Where is the gigantic movement to organize educational seminars throughout the country to talk to people about these dangerous acts congress is about to do? Where is the call for a massive letter-writing campaign? Where is the organizing of a general strike should congress attempt to harm so many people by these reckless acts? Where is the effort to unite the HRC and DT supporters against these congressional policies? Remember, Trump railed against congress almost as much as he did against HRC.
So where is this?
Oh, right, we are busy criticizing the mental capabilities of Trump's supports, trying to keep him from being elected, looking for a guardian angel to save us, wondering about "identity politics".

The question is how is it that we find ourselves in a situation where all three branches of government are controlled by far FAR right Republicans? How is it that most governers are Republican. Enough state legislatures are totally republican that they could almost (1 short) call for a constitutional convention and rewrite the US Constitution.
From your local dog-catcher right up to the White House. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama aside (neither of whom is an FDR democrat), Republicans control the entire political apparatus of the US.

What the fuck is wrong with us on the left? Yes HRC "won the popular vote". So what? Her presidency would have been less effective that Obama's. She could pick David Duke for the Supreme Court and the Republicans would reject him. Congressional Republicans would do everything in their power to impeach her and that is ALL they would do.

We have the issues. We have the answers. We have no power. And we, and the country, are going to pay a price for that.

Do not talk about the Russian hack, bad as it is, its irrelevant to the situation.
Do not talk about how Trump is unfit, so was Reagan, Bush, Bush so what?
Do not talk the EC saving us from ourselves.

Talk about how we are correct, we have the issues, the US is a liberal country, and the far right is in control of everything - absolutely everything.

Talk about that.

[Kotya]

18. I enjoyed reading your post.

Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[EricMaundry]

23. I think we should talk about everything

This issue too shall pass, but what will we have gained by ignoring it?

[libtodeath]

24. The fact that there is thievery and disenfranchisement should not be ignored either.

Those things are a big reason why even though Democratic candidates routinely get more overall votes the repukes control the system.

[ffr]

25. But some fish do have wings. Welcome to DU #1 poster.

Quite the stance for your very first post. And on this particular subject as well. I'm trying to imagine the probability of that. Suppose I should be honored, but can't get over why you happened to pick my thread and talk to such a great length about something in your very first post.

I suppose it could happen.

[rzemanfl]

30. Not sure bot that. Not a typo. n/t

[if..fish..had..wings]

58. why

I have been reading - not just here, but across the tubes - the left's response to the Dump that is Trump.
For some reason, when reading this thread, it just called for me to voice my opinion.

Honestly, it could have been any of dozens of posts regarding the mortem.

[JudyM]

63. Great 1st post! Welcome to DU!

[GoCubsGo]

29. Awwww!!! Bless your heart! n/t

[Qutzupalotl]

35. I mostly agree.

We should be talking about how we're right on the issues and in agreement with most Americans. That will help us in future elections.

Where I disagree is on the Russian meddling. That is a major issue, and our incoming president and his national security advisor are both compromised and subject to influence by a foreign power. Trump can be blackmailed, and that's a problem.

As much as I disagree with Pence, I'd rather have him as president and Trump out of the picture; at least Pence would not hand our state secrets to Putin. His cabinet picks would be less crazy. Still partisan, but not as nuts. Bannon would not be strategist, for example. Tillerson might not be SOS.

An election do-over is not in the Constitution, as you noted, although these recent events are unprecedented. An EC revolt is an extremely long shot. Impeachment looks unlikely, short of a formal accusation of high crimes — yet that might be coming.

Obama is president for now, and a lot can happen before January 20.

[if..fish..had..wings]

59. Yes

On the Russian meddling. I was not trying to say that it is not serious, Putin it mildy the current regime in Russia is globally dangerous and likely only to become more so.

I was only saying that, with regards to the election, it is irrelevant. We on the left, we pro-education, pro-choice, pro-union, pro-science, pro-growth, pro-peace, pro-environment, pro-people pro-gressives, we of the FDR left, we have been back on our heels for 30 years. This catastrophe that is Trump was not dumped upon us by the Russians. We have been losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans for decades.

[VOX]

48. "Do not talk about the Russian hack, bad as it is..."

"its irrelevant to the situation.
Do not talk about how Trump is unfit, so was Reagan, Bush, Bush so what?
Do not talk the EC saving us from ourselves..."

Quite a first post. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[jack_krass]

61. I couldnt agree more with your last two paragraphs.

[Paladin]

26. Notice the brand-new posters, telling us to back off and just put up with all the current shit.

Be not deceived.

[rzemanfl]

28. I have been seeing a lot of new people trying to calm us down.

Saying in effect "no harm no foul" regarding Russian interference.

I asked one of mine "when you fish, do you cast or just drag the lure behind the boat?"

He is no longer with us.

[GoCubsGo]

31. Yeah, I have noticed it, as well.

[A Round Tuit]

33. Notice how some of the "brand new posters"...

that have been here for a while...have refrained from saying ANYTHING, because someone that has a uptagazillion post count will remark on the fact that they are "brand new posters".

I agree with the "newby".

We have spent over a month pissing and moaning about what could have been.

But it ain't gonna be.

So, we redirect our efforts to trying to make what "could have been"...a "will be", for future efforts.

We had a flawed candidate. Many cry blasphemy when that is said, but the truth, the painful truth, is that she alienated just a little less than half of the population of the voting public.

So, many of them, holding their nose, I'm sure, voted for the pie in the sky and even though they will probably regret it later, it resulted in the Electoral Votes of those states going to Trump.

There is no "Constitutional Crisis", there is no chance that Mr. Obama will declare Martial Law and order a "do-over", there is no chance that a recount will do much of anything other than increase the totals of both candidates count in some areas and reduce it in other areas.

There is no real evidence of hacking, cheating, suppressing, etc, other than anecdotal. I've heard the "voter suppression" thing thrown around constantly, but if it was truly suppressed, would Hillary have received nearly 2.5 million more popular votes than Trump?

And so what if Russia "influenced" the election through the dissemination of "false news"? Myself, I'm smart enough to take most of what is said with a grain of salt and look into it for myself. For BOTH sides.

I fully expect some of you "high count" members to attack me for saying what I've said...but look at my join date and know that I've been here every day of that time (except for the hack) and that I'm damned well aware of what was happening.

I've watched cooler heads attempt to prevail and seen them mercilessly gutted and I've seen some the nutballs call for petitions and actions that they knew damned well would change NOTHING...and they were lionized.

Time to put on our big boy pants (or big girl, pants...before I get accused of misogyny), and get back to work.

We have 4 years, at worst, to expose this for what it is. Less, if we catch him with his pants down (not necessarily metaphorically, either) and push our reps for impeachment.

In any event, we ain't getting nothing done by sitting in sack cloth and ashes, and crying and moaning and grasping for every straw some one comes up with and extends.

So be it.

Goodbye.

[Paladin]

42. And a very well-deserved goodbye to you---and your cohorts---as well. (nt)

[libtodeath]

39. Yes and a few others saying surrender too.

[triron]

47. I've noticed.

[if..fish..had..wings]

60. Not my intent

I am sorry that my post came across that way.

I did not intend to imply that we should back off anything or put up with anything.

Quite the opposite. We should be building a ground-up resistance, we should be organizing neighborhood cells for education, relief, and community. We should be fomenting a general strike to oppose the Republican dismantling of the entire country.

Oppose the Alt-White House that is coming. Oppose the GMO Congress (Gerry Mandered Ogres).

Unite with the poor schmucks who fell for the crap-fest during the election.

[duffyduff]

32. The ball is in the EC's court, and they won't do shit.

That is because these people from the Trump states are idiots. The ONLY right choice would be to choose the popular vote winner, Hillary Clinton.

Any candidate who did not run in the GE and selected by the EC would be illegitimate, just as the USSC picked GWB as president.

Cold day in hell the EC would EVER select a Democrat to be in the WH.

I think state secession is a very distinct possibility.

[BainsBane]

34. It's not going to happen

Not without extraordinary proof that Russians directly interfered with the vote count.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

38. Can't they charge Trump with treason or something

And make him ineligible to take office?

[jberryhill]

54. And where does a pending criminal charge make someone "ineligible to take office"?

[Ken Burch]

40. Is there any provision in the Constitution that would actually allow for a national re-vote?

n/t.

[suston96]

43. In the constitution.......?

Re-vote? Don't think so.

Founders left elections up to the states and federal and state legislatures. Maybe state referendums also. USConstitution is not much help when most of the amendment control is in the hands of partisan courts and legislatures.

But then there is this:

The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.

Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821

Wonder what that famous CJ had in mind?

[Ken Burch]

46. As Ace Ventura would say...

"Alrighty then".

[onenote]

50. He had in mind rebutting the argument

that the SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of state laws. Based on your reading of the case in which he made that statement and the context in which it was made, what do you think he had in mind?

[suston96]

56. In his mind.....

I believe he is the justice who got the ball rolling regarding judicial review.

However, I choose to consider his statement as a referral to the fact that all power in this republic comes from the people who can at anytime, regardless of constitutional stipulations, cancel the constitution and start over again.

Political parties and their ilk have been screwing around with the constitution since its initial ratification and since its maneuverabilities? were discovered.

Biggest flaw: control of federal elections by the individual states.

Note: Did you link my quote to a specific case? Could you post it? Thanks.

[jberryhill]

55. No

[NewJeffCT]

68. Wasn't there a case in Pennsylvania

where the judge ruled the victor had won via fraud and the judge's ruling gave the election to the defrauded "loser"?

[suston96]

41. New elections? Sounds like a good idea.....

Anyone remember this:

http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/ukrainians-overthrow-dictatorship-orange-revolution-2004

We can talk about that "orange" later......

[flamingdem]

45. Don't forget Comey, he helped the most

see Nate Silver on the stats regarding undecided voters

[radius777]

49. Baer isn't stupid, he knows the Constitution won't alow a revote.

His statement, imo, is rhetorical, more about pointing out the larger picture of what is wrong with our system, and about a shot across the bow from the CIA to Trump/FBI/Putin.

Baer, like many of us, knows something was deeply wrong with this election, where a hostile power could meddle to this degree, where the FBI/Comey were essentially an arm of the GOP/Trump, where the election was stolen/thrown to someone like Trump who is historically unqualified, unstable, un-Western in his views, etc. And that our system should, in theory (which was the purpose of the EC in the first place) stop something like this. It won't this time, but clearly we need reform of the system going forward, and I think this is what Baer was getting at.

[radical noodle]

51. Start calling Trump

Russia's president of the US.

[kudzu22]

62. I'm not sure what would be different in a revote

They're not alleging that the voting machines or vote totals were hacked. They're alleging that the Russians hacked DNC email to leak damaging info to the public, right? Well, that damaging info is still out there. Nobody forgot about it. American opinion is still affected. So we'd be re-voting under the same conditions as the original vote.

[triron]

64. Not alleging vote hacked YET.

Don't know what CIA and FBI know.

[kudzu22]

65. True

and if there is some evidence of machine and/or count tampering that's another story, but the WI recount hasn't really budged the vote totals, suggesting if there were some hack it wasn't done in Wisconsin. Unless of course every county official in the state is actually a Russian sleeper agent...

[triron]

66. trouble with that

is (as I last understood) counties where machines used to to tabulations not allowing hand counts; that is where the cyber experts believe discrepancies exist.

[0rganism]

67. "calls grow"? wtf does that even mean?

i'm gonna go out on a limb and say "it amounts to bupkis" and "we aren't getting a fucking do-over"