Might Mueller decide that iq45 was illegitimately elected

[sweetroxie]

and then decide that he CAN indict him as an illegitimately "elected" president? tRump stole that election. That's really my only hope. Why on earth does he deserve protection from indictment?

[Loki Liesmith]

1. no.

Mueller will play this exactly by the book, and he isn't going to do a lot of things we might want him to.

[mucifer]

2. so true. But, we can have our dreams.

[OnDoutside]

3. No.

That said, he can indict all those involved below him, so that the picture is quite obvious that he was the head of it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. That's not his mandate, and hoping for it to happen is to hope for it to lose legitimacy.

[backscatter712]

12. During the course of the investigation, if he comes across evidence of election fraud...

He can investigate and prosecute.

He doesn't have the authority to overturn an election, but he does have authority to prosecute cases of election fraud if he sees evidence of it.

[Lulu KC]

5. The glimmer of hope I feel sometimes

--scares me. But thank you for this. I've seen too many unbelievably wonderful things happen in my life to not have just this tiny bit.

[Sherman A1]

6. Even if he did

What is the remedy? There are no do overs in the constitution.

[Jarqui]

7. That is not in his mandate as I understand it

He's gathering facts to report as best as he is able what happened.
Along with that, he'll indict those who broke the criminal laws that he encountered along the way.

It will be up to others to deal with the issue you raise. However, I doubt much about overturning an election result can be done because the laws seem to be set to sort elections out quite quickly. I'm not a lawyer so maybe others know better.

I suspect the only remedies are impeachment (which Republicans will not do because of of them are also culpable) or the 2020 election.

[unblock]

8. impossible. there's simply no mechanism for this. however, "protection from indictment" is

merely a claim, typically made by right-wingers, although some of them are at least actual lawyers.

it's never been tested, no court has made any such ruling, and the constitution is not at all clear on such matters.

as a practical matter, whatever protection from indictment he has stems largely from the fact that the doj happens to have a policy to not indict a sitting president. arguably, though, such a policy is, in fact, itself an obstruction of justice.


constitutionally, given that the supreme court has ruled that a civil case can proceed against a sitting president, it's rather hard to imagine that a sitting president couldn't be indicted.

there *may* be a case to delay a trial until the president it out of office on the grounds that a president is "too busy" or "can't be distracted from constitutional obligations", but this, again, is difficult to argue given that a civil case presents similar challenges to a president and yet that was allowed to proceed.


note also, that the doj's policy against indicting a sitting president doesn't keep state attorneys general from indicting him....

[empedocles]

13. Reading Mueller's mandate from Rosenstein, authorization is for Title 28, 600.4-10

The authority is clear to 'investigate and prosecute' [almost anything related]. There is a general reference to DOJ practices, procedures, rules, . . . Followed by explicit reference that there will be 'no direct supervision of the Special Counsel'.

Given all this, tested by the antagonistic Judge Ellis in the Manafort trial, it becomes clear why Mueller has not been interfered with.

If Mueller chooses he can make good arguments to indict trump, it will certainly be contested. However, it makes sense, that trump shoots somebody on 5th Avenue, he will be indicted. Period.

[unblock]

15. Well, if he actually does something so beyond the pale* like shoot someone on 5th ave.,

he'd actually get impeached first, making the question of indicting a sitting president moot.

The real question is will he/can he be indicted and then tried while congress refuses to remove him.


*Of course, "beyond the pale" is a relative concept these days....

[empedocles]

16. RW arguments would be, 'hasn't been done before'.

Apart from shooting, serious Russia crime may not move the base enough to move enough 'con Senators to impeach, however . . .

. . . public support, would support indictment, . . .

[brooklynite]

9. No. Trump WAS legitimately elected

You need to remember that you have NO RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. The States chose to let you and chose to certify the results in their appointment of Electors. The vote of the Electors is the only thing that matters.

[unblock]

18. those details are certainly true, but not necessarily the conclusion.

the states are certainly free to determine the electors in a manner of their own choosing, but having chosen to do it by elections, it would be illegitimate if, for instance, they then simply altered the vote count and picked electors in a manner contrary to state law (or the state or federal constitution).

of all the crap that's gone on in the election, we've not seen clear evidence of actual vote tampering, and crimes committed during the election such as campaign finance violations, or even espionage, would not normally be taken to render the entire election illegitimate, but actual vote counting fraud probably would.

that said, we have no mechanism to reverse or alter such a tainted election after the electoral college has met.

[brooklynite]

21. But they didn't...

People voted. If people's votes were swayed by Russian propaganda, that's on the voter.

[unblock]

25. but there remains a difference between "legitimate" and "legal".

assuming there was no actual vote tampering, donnie's election was legal, but it is certainly possible to maintain that it was not legitimate, especially as it involved meaningful, illegal help from russians.

the key point, to my mind, is that regardless of any illegitimacy, there's no mechanism to reverse an election at this stage, period. the most that could be done is impeachment and removal. but that does not mean that the electors were chosen legitimately, nor that the president was then chosen legitimately.

the fact that we have no constitutional right to vote for president is true, but largely irrelevant; each state having chosen to select its electors based on election gives us a vote, albeit we're technically voting for electors rather than directly for presidents.

[brooklynite]

30. How do you define illegitimate?

If I'm a Republican in 2010 who promises to repeal ACA, knowing I won't be able to, was I legitimately elected? How about when I run again in 2012, promise the same thing and you the voter support me even though you know I lied the first time?

I think you have to know, with a strong degree of certainty, that Russian interference AND NO OTHER FACTORS influence enough voters to change their minds.

[unblock]

31. "legal" is based on a standard of law. "legitimate" is based on standards of ethics, logic, mores...

the question is how illegitimate does an election have to be before our institutions would somehow unwind or reverse it?

given controversial election such as hayes/tilden and bush/gore, and many less notorious incidents of campaign finance violations, etc., it would seem that there's plenty of room for an election to be illegitimate yet still legal.

given that lack of explicit provisions to reverse or even to call for a new election, i would think nothing short of overtly miscounting votes would be enough for our institutions to say, ok, we can't just let them get away with this.


i agree that crap candidates lying or dirty tricks like comey calling hillary "extremely careless" and later leaking that he was essentially reopening the investigation against her based on "new evidence" that wasn't new at all just days before the election is the sort of thing that voters have only themselves to blame for, at least within the scope of deciding if an election is legitimate or not or legal or not.

illegal activity, on the other hand, including russian espionage and manipulation, i think that could affect the legitimacy of an election. i agree, though, that one ideally be able to have some sense of proportion, that illegal activity did account for enough votes to change the outcome. in practice, i wouldn't think this too hard to believe, given that i think the margin was only about 80,000 votes in 3 states. actually proving it is another matter entirely....

[brooklynite]

33. I think it IS too hard to believe...

My interpretation is that Russian propaganda merely reinforced beliefs and biases that pro-Trump voters already had. I'm also aware of significant tactical mistakes that the Clinton campaign made that could have influenced the outcome.

[unblock]

34. significant tactical mistakes the clinton campaign made?

you mean the campaign that virtually every poll had her leading, usually significantly, virtually every day of the campaign?
you mean the campaign that virtually every electoral model had her as a solid favorite to win?
you mean the campaign that got a bump in the polls after the conventions?
you mean the campaign that got a bump in the polls after the debates, which she was widely considered to have won?

yeah, we can always say that any state she lost by a small margin, she could have campaigned in more, but really, it's so easy to find a some mistakes in any losing team, even if you have to admit that such mistakes would be completely ignore had they won. it's monday morning quarterbacking at best, and it's falling for russian propaganda at worst.

hillary ran a very solid campaign. she was upended at the last minute by two factors: (a) comey's nonsense with the wiener laptop and (b) russian manipulation, which was highly targeted and whose effectiveness went below the radar until it was too late.

[brooklynite]

35. Yes, that campaign...and I got my information from several State Party Chairs

[unblock]

36. well to look at the evidence, it appears hillary didn't make nearly enough mistakes

i mean, donnie broke nearly every rule in politics and won, so....

[zipplewrath]

10. No

He was elected by the process lain out in the constitution, including acceptance by Congress. That's called "legitimate". Only Congress can "undo" this.

[duforsure]

11. I agree

I think he's already got the proof to back that up , and no longer scared of him knowing that could really expose him now.

[Joe941]

14. If he does the election will be invalidated and a new election should be held immediately.

[MichMary]

32. The Constitution

makes no provision for invalidating an election. It isn't in there, which is why there will be no do-over.

[DFW]

17. Our Constitution was not designed to tackle the issue of electon tampering.

Therefore, the Constitution contains no remedy for when it is found to have occurred.

This is why Republicans like "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court. ONLY what is in the Constitution counts. No allowance for electoral fraud in the Constitution? Then there can't ever have been any! Problem solved by being held never to have existed in the first place.

[MineralMan]

19. That's not his job. Nor would it change anything.

That would not be a reason to indict him, since there is no law governing that. Always keep in mind that a President can only be removed from office by Congress. No other method is available.

[Takket]

20. He doesn't have the authority to do that

[Kaleva]

22. No. Doesn't work that way.

[NewJeffCT]

23. Even if they find evidence that Russia hacked voting machines

AND changed votes, I doubt Mueller will say we must have a new election. He will lay out the facts and let Congress and the Courts decide.

I think the best we can hope for with Mueller is that he and his staff will deem that Trump's crimes and transgressions are so egregious that DOJ guidelines that a president cannot be indicted will not be waived. Of course, that may have to get by Whitaker, Rosenstein or whoever is in charge of DOJ by that time.

[tinrobot]

24. That decision would be up to a court, not the prosecutor

Invalidating a major election would also be unprecedented, I doubt the Supreme Court would do that.

There are much easier ways to indict him.

[unblock]

26. one could argue they did that in 2000....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. No.

[beachbum bob]

28. not remotely possible under any circumstance

[libdem4life]

29. Going to for sure happen...

loss of two things he values most (not his kids)... his ill-gotten money and properties (frozen, seized) his brand (soiled all to hell).

Then, finally...irrelevancy, for him, will be a greater curse than prison. At least there, he could write books, and do his thing on other prisoners...still work his con..and likely still get some press while he and his supporters play the victims.