2016 Postmortem

Stellar

(5,644 posts) Sat Dec 10, 2016, 11:33 AM Dec 2016

Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton

A 1995 federal court ruling out of Pennsylvania may offer some clues to Clinton supporters as to possible legal authority for removing an elected official from office and replacing them with their erstwhile opponent.
In light of late-breaking reports Friday evening that Russians interfered with the 2016 presidential election to assist Donald Trump’s victory, Clinton supporters are furiously in pursuit of remedies.

At 10:45 p.m. Friday evening, the Washington Post broke an explosive story alleging that Russians had interfered with the 2016 presidential election in order to assist Donald Trump in a victory over democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week.

The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies. No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome. Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the power to determine the date by which the Electoral College will cast their votes, presently set for December 19. In recent weeks, a massive online movement asking members of the Electoral College to become “faithless” or “conscientious” electors and to vote for Clinton instead of Trump has garnered national attention.

The electors would be well within their constitutional authority to do so, say groups like Hamilton’s Electors, which claims that the purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent demagogues like Mr. Trump from assuming the nation’s highest office. A petition urging the Electoral College to make Hillary Clinton president has gained nearly 5 million signatures.

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton (Original Post) Stellar Dec 2016 OP

But Clinton et al are be "non partisan" or some bullshit uponit7771 Dec 2016 #1

Or have new elections UCmeNdc Dec 2016 #2

There is no Constitutional provision SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #6

It's interesting this was never considered by the founders RonniePudding Dec 2016 #11

Overrated, perhaps...but I too thought this should have come out back then, nt Stellar Dec 2016 #13

K&R nt ProudProgressiveNow Dec 2016 #3

If the dems can't work this they have failed us flamingdem Dec 2016 #4

K&R! DemonGoddess Dec 2016 #5

a question about process- mopinko Dec 2016 #7

Look here... 2naSalit Dec 2016 #8

doesnt really answer the question. mopinko Dec 2016 #10

Thanks... 2naSalit Dec 2016 #16

i pointed out the money to be made in the bomb shelter boom mopinko Dec 2016 #17

It's fairly simple. Exilednight Dec 2016 #23

ah. so. they have to actually stand and deliver, eh? mopinko Dec 2016 #24

LOL !!! pangaia Dec 2016 #26

Wasn't a major purpose of the electoral college is to vote on the behalf of the people who really TrekLuver Dec 2016 #9

Most electors are party hacks RonniePudding Dec 2016 #12

I don't think so.. speaktruthtopower Dec 2016 #15

The EC should do it, but you know the partisan hacks won't. duffyduff Dec 2016 #14

Right! :((((. But can you imagine what the dispicables would do if we put Clinton in office? Auntie Bush Dec 2016 #18

knr triron Dec 2016 #19

We would be looking at another Civil War. briv1016 Dec 2016 #20

Let the babies riot. duffyduff Dec 2016 #21

It's not the riots I'm worried about. briv1016 Dec 2016 #22

knr triron Dec 2016 #25

uponit7771

(91,756 posts)

1. But Clinton et al are be "non partisan" or some bullshit

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 11:35 AM

Dec 2016

UCmeNdc

(9,650 posts)

2. Or have new elections

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 11:36 AM

Dec 2016

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,352 posts)

6. There is no Constitutional provision

Reply to UCmeNdc (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 11:37 AM

Dec 2016

for "new elections".

RonniePudding

(889 posts)

11. It's interesting this was never considered by the founders

Reply to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 01:32 PM

Dec 2016

It seems like something that might have been needed at that time more than it would be in our time, yet there is no provision.

The founders were kind of overrated IMO.

Stellar

(5,644 posts)

13. Overrated, perhaps...but I too thought this should have come out back then, nt

Reply to RonniePudding (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 07:26 PM

Dec 2016

ProudProgressiveNow

(6,165 posts)

3. K&R nt

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 11:36 AM

Dec 2016

flamingdem

(39,917 posts)

4. If the dems can't work this they have failed us

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 11:37 AM

Dec 2016

Do NOT roll over!

DemonGoddess

(5,123 posts)

5. K&R!

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 11:37 AM

Dec 2016

The EC needs to do the right thing. I'm not hopeful that they will.

mopinko

(71,813 posts)

7. a question about process-

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 11:47 AM

Dec 2016

just how does the voting happen? are there actual ballots? are they cast at state meetings of some kind?
is there any face to face?
what i am getting at is are they a group, or are they just isolated individuals?

it would sure make me feel better if i thought these people communicated at all.

i hope you guys all read your oath and checked it twice.

2naSalit

(92,695 posts)

8. Look here...

Reply to mopinko (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 01:05 PM

Dec 2016

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

Section 1. [Election, Installation, Removal]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1

(see explanation)http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag1_user.html#art2_sec1

mopinko

(71,813 posts)

10. doesnt really answer the question.

Reply to 2naSalit (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 01:27 PM

Dec 2016

more looking for the culture and past of the process.

2naSalit

(92,695 posts)

16. Thanks...

Reply to mopinko (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 08:19 PM

Dec 2016

I didn't have time to dive in to that info, had to go do some chores.

So that's the issue with much of the original documentation, its subject to interpretation which in this case could be dangerous.

What I got from what I did read is that the EC has a process and it was described there. As for the SCOTUS, I didn't get anything specific other than they are required to protect the Constitution and our (we citizens) best interests. IMHO this current set of issues warrant intervention from the one branch that is not directly involved in the election since they are all appointed. But they screwed us last time in 2000 so there's that.

I am tempted to turn prepper and go find a cave.

mopinko

(71,813 posts)

17. i pointed out the money to be made in the bomb shelter boom

Reply to 2naSalit (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 08:30 PM

Dec 2016

that will surely begin dec 20 if the electors dont save us.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)

23. It's fairly simple.

Reply to mopinko (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 10:07 PM

Dec 2016

Hillary won New York so all of the electorates representing NY are chosen by the Hillary campaign. They're sent to DC where they actually cast a vote I'm the EC. The Senate majority leader reads each vote publicly for the record and the winner of 270 EVs becomes President of the United States.

The same process is repeated for VP.

mopinko

(71,813 posts)

24. ah. so. they have to actually stand and deliver, eh?

Reply to Exilednight (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 10:08 PM

Dec 2016

hmmmm. well that usually brings out the hero in some folks.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)

26. LOL !!!

Reply to mopinko (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 11, 2016, 02:06 AM

Dec 2016

TrekLuver

(2,573 posts)

9. Wasn't a major purpose of the electoral college is to vote on the behalf of the people who really

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 01:08 PM

Dec 2016

couldn't make a sound decision themselves. This is a prime example of why electors need to step in and say I must disregard Trashpot votes and do what is right for the country. His cabinet picks prove that period. That's all these electors need to step in.

Now this TILLERSON GUY...........FUMING.

RonniePudding

(889 posts)

12. Most electors are party hacks

Reply to TrekLuver (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 01:34 PM

Dec 2016

speaktruthtopower

(800 posts)

15. I don't think so..

Reply to TrekLuver (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 07:50 PM

Dec 2016

it dates back to the times when it took weeks for news of election results to spread, and for the electors to gather in one place to make sense of things.

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)

14. The EC should do it, but you know the partisan hacks won't.

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 07:47 PM

Dec 2016

Any Republican, even one controlled by the Russians, is better than a Democrat. Especially a woman Democrat. Especially THIS woman Democrat.

Auntie Bush

(17,528 posts)

18. Right! :((((. But can you imagine what the dispicables would do if we put Clinton in office?

Reply to duffyduff (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 09:25 PM

Dec 2016

They would start a civil war!

triron

(22,240 posts)

19. knr

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 09:26 PM

Dec 2016

briv1016

(1,570 posts)

20. We would be looking at another Civil War.

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 09:32 PM

Dec 2016

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)

21. Let the babies riot.

Reply to briv1016 (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 09:43 PM

Dec 2016

It doubt it would happen to any great extent. Fake worries about a "civil war" if HRC got in is just an excuse for the electors to do the wrong thing.

briv1016

(1,570 posts)

22. It's not the riots I'm worried about.

Reply to duffyduff (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 09:48 PM

Dec 2016

It's the bombing and small arms attacks on soft targets along with assassinations. Think more of a Middle East type war.

triron

(22,240 posts)

25. knr

Reply to Stellar (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2016, 01:37 AM

Dec 2016

Reply to this discussion