Ex-CIA operative: We may need a new vote

[ehrnst]

Former CIA Operative Robert Baer says if the CIA can prove that Russia interfered with the 2016 election then the US should vote again.

CNN video: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn/video/playlists/donald-trump-and-russia/

[triron]

1. I listened to him say that as well.

Said European democracies would do that if they were interfered with by outside power.

[Kotya]

6. Doesn't matter what European democracies would do.

Our Constitution is pretty clear on the matter. The next election for President of the United States will take place on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020.

There are no Constitutional procedures for "do-over" elections.

Once Trump becomes President, there are Constitutional mechanisms in place to remove him from office.

[duffyduff]

9. Or the EC can do their ethical duty and refuse to approve him. n/t

[Kotya]

11. Yes, they can.

I think Donald Trump has a better chance of a meteor hitting him on the head while he's taking the Oath of Office than this happening though.

[duffyduff]

13. That is because the EC is made up of a bunch of stupid partisans.

It is very clear that in this case, the popular vote winner, Hillary Clinton, should be the 45th president of the United States.

The EC is chickenshit over the gun nuts and other idiots who might turn to violence.

They need to do the right thing. Putting a REPUBLICAN in there is NOT the right thing when it is clear several states were tampered with in the election.

[still_one]

80. Actually, that is exactly what I am counting on, the meteor that is

[libtodeath]

17. Why are you so determined he becomes president?

[Kotya]

19. Don't confuse my understanding of how the Constitution works

With being determined that Donald Trump becomes President.

There's dozens of posts on this forum spouting off about mystical election do-overs, procedures of which exist nowhere in the Constitution, as if there's a chance they might happen.

Pardon me for not embracing this nonsense.

There are procedures to remove Donald Trump as President. They are spelled out clearly in the Constitution. "Do-over" elections are not one of them.

[libtodeath]

21. Have we ever been in this situation before with the constitution silent on what to do?

[Kotya]

23. The Constitution is not silent on what to do.

Procedures for the transfer of power are spelled out very clearly.

We had an election during the Civil War, for crying out loud. We don't get a do-over because the Russians hacked DNC emails showing Debbie Wasserman Schultz was in the tank for Hillary Clinton --as nice as this would be.

[libtodeath]

24. Glad you are happy to surrender

[treestar]

71. And now we see why

Bernie.

I think we could do it over. The republicans could contest. The courts could then decide the do over is constitutional. Nothing in the constitution says we must give up a true election result.

[longship]

79. Surrendering the constitution by somehow having a do over is not an option.

There are no presidential election do overs under our constitutional republic.

There are some constitutional checks and balances to the presidency, however. And that is where we should focus our efforts instead of silly White House petitions for revotes, as if Barack Obama had that power, which he clearly does not.

Advocating for an election redo can be fairly characterized as cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. There is no legal structure for such a thing.

We have to focus on constitutional methods to fight Drumpf.

Let's focus on that. And yes, it's likely going to be a long slog. If congress remains like it is, it will likely be four years before we're rid of him.

As Major Kong said, "Let's get things on the hump. We've got some flying to do!"

Obligatory video clip:

[leftofcool]

26. And yet it wasn't just DNC emails now was it?

[Exilednight]

55. What else was hacked, and how?

[Kotya]

62. I just re-read the WP article and as far as I can tell,

Yes, it was just the DNC emails that the Russians hacked and passed on to WikiLeaks.

That's what this whole "influencing an election" story is all about. The Russians influenced our election by spreading hacked emails that showed the DNC trying to, well, never mind...

There are allegations that they hacked the RNC as well but they didn't do anything with the info they gleaned. Of course, the RNC made it no secret that Trump was the last guy in the world they wanted to win the nomination.

[Justice]

83. NYT says RNC hacked but nothing released yet

/http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0&referer=|

[MFM008]

27. How did I lnow

The DNC thing was gonna get mentioned?
because that's so much more important than this maggot getting into office and destroying the country and the world.

[Charles Bukowski]

54. Bernie Busters, Republicans, and Russia

An alliance made in hell.

[Justice]

82. Exactly. That is coming through in the comments

[awoke_in_2003]

35. No, we have not been in this situation before...

the poster is explaining that the constitution does not have a mechanism for a do over election- that does not mean that the poster is supporting Trump.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. The original setup was people voted for people to vote for people....

That buffer was to prevent the first group of people from voting for the wrong people.

Which is why I did this:

[onenote]

72. Actually there was nothing in the original set up about people voting for the EC

and, in fact, for quite a few years, many states had their state legislatures select the electors, not a popular vote.

Around the time of the first presidential election, the non-slave population was around 2.4 million. Less than 45,000 votes were cast in the first presidential election.

It was even more lopsided in the second presidential election, in 1792: fewer than half the states chose electors by popular vote and the total number of popular votes cast was less than 30,000.

Even as late as 1828, several states were selecting electors by means other than statewide popular vote.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

84. You also originally had to be a wealthy land owner....

Every so often some Republican will say renters should be ineligible to vote.

[onenote]

85. and not a slave. and male.

[Maraya1969]

40. Yes there are. The president can impose martial law.

[triron]

42. I think that needs to happen

if you are correct.

[TheFrenchRazor]

69. agreed; a foreign power is attempting to hijack our very democracy/government. nt

[onenote]

73. The SCOTUS has described a very limited set of circumstances where that could happen

"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

So, no, the Constitution would not allow for martial law under current circumstances.

[democratisphere]

2. Let's do it.

Extend Obama's second term and allow the GOP to find a sane or semi-sane replacement contender.

[Kotya]

7. Indulge me, please.

Walk me through the scenario in which President Obama's second term is "extended" until a sane or semi-sane replacement for Donald Trump is found.

I'm curious how you imagine this will transpire.

[bucolic_frolic]

30. High level meetings

once the GOP is convinced they will take the responsibility for the hacking,
they will be more reasonable

Provocation by a hostile foreign power to determine our election outcome
is no mean transgression

War powers could be construed to include, in consultation with senior
political figures of both parties and the Supreme Court, to suspend the
outcome of an election and force a do-over

At the least, such an action would force the new Congress to pursue
this with laser-like focus, nothing else would be on the news for 6 months

Who is shaking whom down from the hackings of both parties, who is a
loyal American, who isn't

It's Joe McCarthy all over again ... but this is more serious and I agree
with John Dean today, this is bigger than Watergate, this is selling the'
country out for a buck by grabbing all the resources

[duffyduff]

10. Forget it.

The presidency belongs to the person who won the most votes, period.

If the EC would do the right thing, it would basically abolish the EC as any kind of way to help the GOP..

[Kotya]

14. Yes, to the person who won the most electoral votes.

That's the rule of the game. Both candidates knew this going in.

This has always been the rule of the game.

The EC will vote for president the person who won the most votes in the state they are representing. Electors in Texas represent voters in Texas. They're not concerned with who Californians voted for.

[duffyduff]

16. Nope. The person who got the popular vote should be in because those T states are under suspicion.

The EC does not have to vote for Trump. They are not required to, no matter what some state statutes might claim.

Trump does not belong in there under any circumstances. Neither does Pence.

Any other Republican offered would be seen as not legitimate.

We have had a somewhat similar situation with Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller.

The fact Ford was appointed by Nixon (later pardoning Nixon) sealed his fate with the voters when he ran on his own in 1976.

[Achilleaze]

3. We do need a new vote, without trasonous interference from the Russian-Republican cabal

[uponit7771]

4. BINGO !!! Its not a matter of HOW MUCH they interfered that's a false bar. Its a matter of IF

... they interfered at ALL !!!

Who gives a shit if its .00000001%... that's way too much.

Fuck them and DPutin

[AnotherMother4Peace]

5. This had the appearance of an election but as it turns out the fix was in. A fix is not an election.

[NobodyHere]

50. Perhaps we should redo the Democratic primary as well

Since the fix was in at the beginning.

[Kotya]

56. Ouch!

[AnotherMother4Peace]

63. Did this stupid ass response really cause you pain? nt

[duffyduff]

8. We don't need a new vote.

We have a popular vote winner who should be president.

[KittyWampus]

12. States like California and New York could hold referendums on recognizing Trump's authority

Last edited Sat Dec 10, 2016, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

if he gets in and is not impeached. Essentially, two states with large economies can push their weight around.

Secession.

[duffyduff]

15. Yep. I don't think secession is beyond the realm of possibility.

This election truly scraped the bottom.

[libtodeath]

18. There should be a petition to the scotus to put a moritorium on the EC vote.

[PoliticAverse]

33. Which would be rejected 8-0. n/t

[libtodeath]

37. You thik that really?

[PoliticAverse]

38. Absolutely. n/t

[libtodeath]

39. I hope you are wrong because if not hell on earth is on us.

[PoliticAverse]

51. Don't they teach the 'civil war' thing in schools anymore? n/t

[KittyWampus]

86. Yes, they do. We won, the Industrialists bought up the South and over time

as our two modern parties developed, there's been a Southern Strategy developed to milk racism and resentment.

So?

Who is to say we won't have to fight again? One way or other?

[PoliticAverse]

87. Well it would be nice if the rest of the US didn't have to fight California and New York...

because they missed that expensive can't secede lesson.

[TheFrenchRazor]

70. good idea; he is illegitimate. end of story. nt

[totodeinhere]

20. I'm not sure that there is any kind of legal or constitutional mechanism for holding another

vote. If I am wrong someone else can correct me.

A better alternative I think would be for the electors to simply elect Hillary Clinton instead Of Trump. It's probably a long shot but it would be constitutional. Another alternative would be to impeach and convict Trump once he is in office. The problem with this is getting enough republican support to pull it off. And even if successful the next three people in line for the presidency are also Republicans who may also be under the influence of the Russians.

[Qutzupalotl]

22. If new elections are called

Obama would need to step down before Jan. 20 so as not to overstay his two terms. Otherwise the move could be seen as self-serving. Biden could pledge to act as president temporarily and transfer power to the winner of the new election.

[Farmgirl1961]

52. I'd be okay with that...

I say - DO IT!!!

[BigDemVoter]

25. At the very LEAST, this will send Orange Rectum over the edge. . . .

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

28. Just elect Hillary

There's no way anyone would vote republican

[hughee99]

29. Yes, we should start the process that the constitution has for

A "do-over" vote as soon as possible.

[PoliticAverse]

34. Well Biden has hinted he might run in the "do-over". n/t

[Kotya]

57. "As soon as possible" means Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020.

That will be the next time the Constitution allows for a "do-over" vote for President.

[hughee99]

59. Exactly. People are rightly concerned about trump,

And many are calling him illegitimate, but making up a brand new process on the fly isn't going to result in a "legitimate" president either.

[triron]

60. Have a new election

https://www.rt.com/news/349106-austria-president-election-cancelled/

[hughee99]

61. And? I don't think judicial rulings in foreign countries

Allow the US government to ignore the constitution... At least I hope they don't.

[AlexSFCA]

32. Won't happen

do-over election is not possible. I do beleive there is a possibility that Trump won't get 270, nobody will. House will select the president. In the meantime, Speaker of the house, Paul Ryan, will be the interim president. The house may elect him as president. Senate will select vice president which could still be Pence.
More realistic approach is that Trump may get impeached within first year. Many republicans don't want him cause they vehemently oppose the infrastructure spending bill. There is more then enough material to impeach Trump. In that case, Pence will be president and Paul Ryan is effectively Vice-President.

All of it is still much better than Trump. If Trump is not held accountable, he is de facto mormalized. This meansour democracy will be compromised indefinately.

[PoliticAverse]

36. If they oppose the infrastructure spending bill they could just not pass it. n/t

[AlexSFCA]

47. not that simple

Infrastructure spending was part of Trump's platform and a way to deliver jobs to rust belt states. Bannon's propaganda arm is gonna push that bill hard. With many democrats supporting the bill, they may only need some republican support in the senate. In the house, again, Bannon's propaganda arm may prove strong enough to push against those who oppose tr bill so they may face backlash upon reelection.

And lastly, Putin retains stolen RNC emails as collteral. They can pick and choose which emails to wikileak to target specific republicans - it'/ a true hostage situation.

If Trump is not president, forget about infrastructure until democrats in full control.

[PoliticAverse]

48. If they don't have enough votes to stop the spending bill they aren't going to have enough votes...

to impeach him.

[onenote]

74. The only way the House could elect Ryan as President

Is if he is the third largest EC vote getter.
I suppose that's possible, but he will move heaven and earth to convince the House to vote for Trump. Just as Kasich has publicly said he doesn't want electors casting their ballots for him, Ryan won't want it either.

It's all but impossible to imagine that, in the course of the next week, 37 or more electors are going to abandon Trump. But even if that happens, he will still have a plurality of the EC votes and the House is going to affirm his election rather than appear to give in to a small minority of electors from states that voted from Trump and override the votes of the large majority of the electors from those states.


Reality bites. But its still reality.

[ehrnst]

43. The "revolution" needs to be peaceful and realistic. (nt)

[triron]

44. Other nations have done it.

[triron]

49. most recently Austria

https://www.rt.com/news/349106-austria-president-election-cancelled/

[onenote]

75. Other nations do lots of stuff. We follow our Constitution.

Want to have a re-do provision? Amend the Constitution.

[StevieM]

45. What if we can prove that the FBI interfered with the election? (eom)

[onenote]

76. Between now and a week from Monday?

Absolute proof? Plus proof that a court would find sufficient to declare that such interference changed the outcome?

Not going to happen.

[Rex]

46. Okay let us make a deal, CIA release all dirty secrets and come clean.

We can decide after that, but CIA first.

[HoneyBadgerDontCare]

53. Martial law?

Last edited Sat Dec 10, 2016, 07:52 PM - Edit history (2)

Is this considered an act of war by Russia, if so and we send in troops, I could see martial law being declared. Otherwise, if we let Russia go with a minor sanction and perhaps not inviting them to an embassy party, I do not see martial law happening.

I think that our government will need to define if this was a bigger attack than 9/11. If it is, then war and therefore martial law, may be practical.

My guess is that this would be telegraphed via proxy war in Syria. Oh wait, we just sent another 300 special forces there. It's on.👀

[onenote]

77. See post #73

It's beyond mildly disturbing that some supposedly progressive thinkers here have become enamored of the idea of extra-Constitutional measures and martial law.

[triron]

58. knr

[triron]

64. knr

[triron]

65. knr

[Doreen]

66. This election was won because of

the Russians and it is obvious that Trump and some of his goons were part of it so why would we need another vote? They just need to go to prison. Hillary is obviously the winner. I suspect some of the electoral college is part of it.

[triron]

68. yep. Connect the dots.

[ooky]

67. Good.

Somebody put him in charge please.

[zippythepinhead]

78. trump has more to fear

from the republicans than the democrats.

republicans are cannibals. They are the "dirty tricks" party. They will Swiftboat him or some kind of dirty pool.

[dagnuguy]

81. There will be no new vote

or martial law declared. Sorry. We may not like what happened but the Constitution is clear. There is also no defensible reason to declare martial law. If Obama tried it would get slapped down fast by the Supremes.

Should we thoroughly investigate what Pooty Poo did to influence the election? Yes and then prosecute everyone involved.