If it is found that trump committed treason to win the election, why can't we demand Hillary

[rainin]

be allowed to take her rightful place as President? I know there is literally NO constitutional path for this. I know. But, we are in unchartered waters. We are making history in every way, so OF COURSE, the constitution didn't provide a remedy. And of course, we can't look to history to see how the US handled the last president who conspired with a foreign power to steal an election. THIS IS NEW. Why can't we right this wrong?

[manor321]

1. Not uncharted

It isn't uncharted. If the President is impeached there is a clear line of succession.

[Javaman]

2. if he is found to have committed treason to be elected wouldn't all his picks for cabinet

and VP be null and void?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. No. nt

[rainin]

8. This is exactly what we need to be thinking about. We will never be made whole if we

paper over all the consequences of this treason. We need convictions first, and then we need consider remedying the consequences of Putin's war on our democracy. Putin wins as long as our government is in friendly hands. He put them there and we lay here powerless to fix it. We need to think outside the box.

[EffieBlack]

9. No.

His election was certified by Congress and he was duly sworn in.

Regardless how he got there, he is, unfortunately, the legal president of the U.S.

[Javaman]

19. But what if, in this case, congress wasn't aware of all the illegal activities going on?

wouldn't that call into question their certification?

[EffieBlack]

21. No.

Because they simply certify the Electoral College vote. Numerous members who voted to do that are now gone and new members can't be expected to replace their judgment with their predecessors.

The Constitution doesn't provide for do-overs - a good thing, in my opinion or else, every election would be relitigated incessantly. And since we don't know what the result would have been without any wrongdoing - it's impossible to recalculate what the vote WOULD have been without it unless we get inside the head of every person who voted for him - this is a useless exercise. Not to mention, it's just never going to happen anyway.

Better to focus on the future rather than trying to undo the past.

[Javaman]

24. okay, that's makes sense. thanks for the info! :)

[onenote]

23. No. Final is final under the constitution

The Constitution provides a mechanism for removing the President. It's impeachment. No court, none, zero, nada, would attempt to overturn the election.

And there also is no chance, none, zero, nada, that Hillary would seek to be "installed" as president by judicial fiat.

This gets brought up here once a month or so, and it is a waste of time.

[trueblue2007]

46. how do you KNOW that Hillary would say NO ??? Did you ask her? You said ......

And there also is no chance, none, zero, nada, that Hillary would seek to be "installed" as president by judicial fiat.



I believe we have no idea "WHAT HILLARY WOULD SAY" because the question has NOT been asked to her.

Let Hillary speak for herself is my opinion.

[onenote]

47. Because everything we know about her says she smarter than the folks who like this idea.

Maybe you think she's stupid. I don't.

[trueblue2007]

48. Dont put words in my mouth. NO PLACE in my note did i state "she was stupid"

She is BRILLIANT.

[onenote]

49. Exactly. Which is why she has expressly stated that there is no constitutional

way to challenge the legitimacy of the election.

I take her at her word: she would not participate in some scheme to install her as president.

https://mic.com/articles/184579/hillary-clinton-no-one-including-me-is-saying-we-will-contest-the-election#.R008XgMDL

[rainin]

3. To another beneficiary of treason, who is not Hillary.

[LisaM]

4. But it's not the same thing.

When the succession was determined, the President and Vice President weren't elected as a ticket. Moreover, the Senate was probably illegally elected.

[EffieBlack]

14. The Constitution does not provide for "do-overs"- and for good reason

[LisaM]

17. But it's maddening that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton

were wrongly denied office.

[mythology]

28. Neither were wrongly denied office

Both lost the Electoral College vote.

[LisaM]

37. Well, Gore probably did win Florida.

And there's a good case to be made that in 2016, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were tampered with. I don't (personally) believe that Bush and Trump really "won" the Electoral College. And, Bush's sketchy "win" created a Supreme Court that allowed Citizens United to become law, thus creating 2016.

[onenote]

20. The line of succession after the VP is determined by Congress.

The Constitution specifies that the VP succeeds to the presidency in the event of a vacancy in the presidency. The Constitution confers on Congress the power to establish a line of succession for situations in which both there are simultaneous vacancies in both the presidency and vice presidency. The current version of the line of succession was enacted in 1947more than 140 years after the 12th Amendment changed the way the VP is selected.

And what do you mean the Senate was "illegally elected"?

[Shrike47]

5. Because of the Constitution. It is a waste of energy to fantasize in that way.

Instead, we should focus on getting Democrats elected in the November races.

[EffieBlack]

10. Thank you.

[rainin]

13. The constitution is a fluid document. We are locked in BECAUSE we can't imagine change.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. Good luck amending the Constitution that quickly.

There are lots of things I would want to see, but sadly, I will never see.

This scenario is one of them.

[BannonsLiver]

38. In theory it's fluid

But not in practice. You couldn’t get 2/3 of the states to agree what the color of the sky is or if water is wet, let alone anything of substance. I try to avoid using the word never but I’ll say this, you’ll never see the constitution amended ever again in your lifetime and I don’t care if you’re 12 or 112. It’s not going to happen. The bar is simply too high.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Because it will never happen.

And I absolutely would love to have Hillary as President right now.

But it will never, ever, ever happen.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Plus 1000000

[sarah FAILIN]

11. Those fools still voted for him

Even though he is a traitor.

The only way would be to prove votes were changed and we can't prove it.

[rainin]

15. It's possible we can prove that voter registrations were purged. We are better than this.

Why should we resign to failure?

[Orsino]

18. Many will demand it.

But without the force of arms, it's not going to happen, and if it did the result would not be constitutional.

[hughee99]

22. So you think the best way to restore people's faith in government and the rule of law is to

ignore the law and make up new law on the spot to give someone their "rightful place" as president?

[rainin]

36. I "think" that there was a time when blacks couldn't vote. I "think" there was a time when women

couldn't vote. I "think" that the mere mention of expanding the access to the vote was met with comments like this. No offense meant, but I'm clear we have no remedy for a presidential election being stolen by a foreign power. That's why I think people need to stop expecting the path to be clear or well-worn. We are facing something new.

[hughee99]

43. And in each of those cases, they used existing rules to make new laws. We don't have a remedy for a

presidential election being stolen, but that's not the problem you're looking to fix. The problem is that the person in office needs to be removed and there is a procedure to resolve that. Moving forward, we can look to create a procedure to handle this if it happens again, but making up something new on the spot will only make things worse.

Out of curiosity, do you think that it would need to be proven in court that Trump and the Russians worked together to get him elected and without that help, he would have lost? Do you have to be able to prove it changed the outcome of the election? Is it enough that the Russians worked to get Trump elected even if you can't prove the two worked together? Based on your suggestion what is the criteria for determining when a president needs to be removed and another should be installed?

[Wwcd]

25. Yes. A page outta Trump's Ms Universe Pagent: "If the Winner cannot fulfill his duties,

the the runner up is declared the Winner."

Something Donald would clearly understand.

Nothing in the Constitution should allow for this Russian tool to be acting in the capacity as President of the USA, so we chart our own waters in such a case.

Madam President please step in & restore our once fine standing in the world & make our country better for ALL, than it ever was imagined.

[ollie10]

26. It doesn't work that way

While it is a tragedy that Hillary is not in the white house instead of the traitor in chief.....this really is not about Hillary. It is about Trump.

He needs to be impeached, convicted in Senate and charged with crimes that will send him where he belongs, behind bars.

[Wwcd]

29. 2016 thru today, it is about Hillary. All the way from the Kremlin to the White House and thru every

possible media channel.
To negate the will of the majority of people over a coup of a foreign enemy, and the entire Republican Congress & Senate, now demands it be made right for that majority.

Hillary Clinton & her 65 million voters are owed justice.
She is essentially the only legitimate candidate that ran for President in the 2016 GE.
She did her part, played by the rules.

She is our true US President, not the one squatting in the Oval Office as a figurehead for Vladimer Putin.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

27. That will mean Mike Pence IS NOT a legitimate VP.....

That will surely put Congressional Republicans in a tizzy because he was on the top ticket for the GOP.

Think about that for a moment.

[bluedigger]

30. Because we aspire to a Rule of Law,not a Rule of Mob.

The Constitution provides for the succession, regardless of circumstance.

[NCTraveler]

31. The short and simple answer...

Clinton wasn't elected President. The spot doesn't just go to someone because we want it to.

[LanternWaste]

32. You may of course, demand it all you like.

You may of course, demand it all you like. However the line of succession is clear, without ambiguity and established law. Should you want to change the law, there are existing mechanisms in place for that.

That said, your proposal is not new... three members of the GOP proposed the same thing in '97-'98.

[RockRaven]

33. The is a constitutional path to Hillary as POTUS, and it will never, never happen

If POTUS and VP are both impeached and removed or resign concurrently, then Speaker of the House is next in line. Speaker need not be an elected House member, so if Dems win the House majority in the midterms they could select Hillary as Speaker. If, after that both offices become vacant she'd be POTUS. But neither of those things will happen, IMO.

1) Dems will not select her as Speaker. There is no reason to believe she wants to be Speaker, nor that she wants to become POTUS in this way. It also obviously assumes the conclusion that Trump and Pence will be ousted, rather than that being the result of following where the evidence and law leads -- a very bad look politically.

2) In order to remove POTUS/VP you need 2/3 of the Senate, meaning at least ~1/3 of GOP Senators. If the crimes and optics of said crimes in the public record get bad enough, you might get them to bail on Trump, but Pence is going to do an "aw, shucks, I didn't know anything about that, and the bits that I did know I couldn't do anything about" routine that will give he GOP an excuse to say "look, we took care of the bad apple who was the source of all this rot, let's move on now." The Senate GOP will not allow both Pence and Trump to be removed simultaneously, ESPECIALLY if Hillary were Speaker.

[Vinca]

34. We can demand anything, but as you pointed out there is no Constitutional remedy for this

particular situation. We can get rid of the Orange Dunce, but then we're stuck with Saint Mike. It's a lose-lose until 2020.

[beachbum bob]

35. No mechanism under law that would do that

Wishful thinking doesn't work either

[WillowTree]

39. Go ahead. Demand that she be named President. Let us know how that works out.

[Oneironaut]

40. To prevent wars of succession.

To prevent conflicts between different camps, government rules of succession must be as clear as possible. There must be no ambiguity, and no loop holes. They must be treated as seriously as Jesus Christ. Otherwise, a country will destroy itself.

Nobody here really wants this to happen. You would be signing this country’s death warrant, along with most people in it. Remember - Trump is in for 4 years, but a governmental collapse is permanent.

[Yavin4]

41. There's no constitutional remedy for what you're asking so the SCOTUS

will deny it from happening. The only true remedy is a political one at the ballot box. Problem is, our Democratic leaders want to continue norms instead of fighting for real change.

[world wide wally]

42. Actually. the entire GOP should be determined illegal

[Queen of the Iceni]

44. I don't think she's feeling well.

[rock]

45. I like your idea that says if the Constitution was not followed

We do not have a legal government, so naturally, we cannot address it by the Constitution. Therefore we need a reset. I.e. you go the stage at which the non-Constitutionality was established and reinstate what was indicated.

[VOX]

50. The OP's scenario would be fair and just. But unfortunately, our gov't doesn't work like that.

Although to continue citing laws, rules and institutional traditions is having little impact. That’s why being the minority party-in-power supremely sucks— Democrats are trying, but they lack the numbers to hold the line.

YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO COME NOVEMBER! It’s less than 6 months away...

[regnaD kciN]

51. Well, you'd have to replace the Constitution first...

...and, frankly, although I can imagine a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum thinking that would be a great idea, I suspect neither you nor I would be very happy with the result.

[jmg257]

52. Strange - seems these same questions were asked

Last January. A little late for making up law to change the outcome of an election.

[Codeine]

53. Treason is a specific crime

which is not applicable in this situation.