I once read that one definition of a"conservative" is "a person who doesn't believe anything should

[Atticus]

ever be done for the first time."

Let's not be conservatives when considering what remedies are available if Mueller proves Trump committed treason to steal the election. "It's never been done before" is NOT a reasonable objection to a just disposition. Nothing should be off the table.

New election with caretaker POTUS?

Reconsideration of ALL appointments by a new Congress?

We can stay faithful to Constitutional principles of fairness without insisting that there be black-letter law to remedy this political aberration.

[NCTraveler]

1. If Mueller has the goods on Trump and treason...

He would have already reported to Congress. No reason to get Trump to lie in an interview at that point. It would be an urgent situation and Mueller is competent. He would have moved forward and shared at least a brief report to congress directly describing the treason. Remember, he is ready to interview Trump. He is nearing the end.

That is my thoughts on treason.

[Exotica]

2. New election with caretaker POTUS?

We would have to shred the Constitution, and that is not going to end well, not for the US, not for the world.

Either Mueller delivers enough so that even some of the Rethugs will help convict and remove Trump in the post-2018 Senate (doubtful they will).

or

We have to win the POTUS back in 2020.

[Atticus]

6. You accuse me of wanting to "shred" the Constitution. Another below says I want to

"violate" the Constitution. Both of you are demonstrably wrong.

What does the Constitution say is the remedy if a person conspires with an adversary nation to become POTUS? The fact is that it says nothing about this situation because, apparently, no one believed that this nation could ever produce, let alone elect, such a traitorous citizen. How can fashioning a new remedy for a totally new wrong violate a provision of the Constitution which does not exist?

Those who drafted the Constitution also never contemplated cell phones, computers or any firearm beyond a single shot black powder musket. We have, however, by dint of trial and error and common sense, fashioned ways to deal with, government and regulate each of these.

We didn't shred or violate the Constitution. We used its principles to fashion expansions of it's scope so that it could deal with the issues which we now must confront and which it's framers never imagined.

I don't think our democracy will be salvagable within our lifetimes if we don't get rid of Trump before 2020. I don't propose scrapping our Constitution. I propose taking off the straight jacket of "we've never done that before" because we have never had a mentally ill criminal in our White House before.

[Exotica]

8. I didnt accuse you alone of anything

I also completely stand by my verbiage that to have a do-over election surely qualifies as shredding it.

There is no Constitutional remedy to Trump other than impeachment, trial by the Senate, conviction and removal OR to defeat him in 2020. Well, his early demise from an illness, but that simply yields Pence.

[Atticus]

10. There is every reason to believe that Pence is up to his eyeballs in the Russian interference. If

Trump is found to merit impeachment, how would his VP who headed his corrupt transition team not also have to go? That likely makes the next Democratic Speaker POTUS and it would be appropriate for that individual to accept the office with the announced intent to serve only as caretaker, meaning they would not be a candidate in 2020.

As far as "do over" election or reconsidering all appointments, those were simply possibilities. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I oppose simply hoping things work out for the best in 2020 while our government is being dismantled before our eyes.

[Exotica]

11. again, I laid out the procedure for impeachment, conviction and removal

I did not simply leave it up to a crapshoot in 2020.

Also there is almost no way to get to POTUS who is the Speaker of the House short of both POTUS and VP dying at same time or within days of each other.. If Trump is convicted and removed, Pence would move up, and the Rethugs would simply put in another Rethug as VP. If Pence goes first, they will do the same. You would have to have simultaneous impeachments, trials, convictions and removals to get to that (plus we do need to win the House back, which we should do).

We also need to find anywhere from 14 to 20ish (depending on the post-2018 Senate profile) Republicans to vote to convict and remove Trump and/or Pence. I hope Mueller brings the goods for that.

[Atticus]

12. Appreciate the exchange. However it happens, we both want this national nightmare to end.

I hope it happens soon so we can get on with repairing the damage.

[Exotica]

14. yes indeed, I just want it to end. I am by nature a hyperactive thinker and game things

out continuously in my mind all the time. I am starting to become overwhelmed with bad-case scenarios.

To take a step back and look at long-wave causalities, I have to posit that the continuous drift towards an evermore "imperious" U.S. Presidency that has been happening in fits and starts for 50 years or so now is making the Trumpian nightmare manifest itself in even more horrid proportions than it would be, say back in 1954 or 1964 (40 and 30 years before I was born, respectively). The office of the POTUS has consistently taken, clawed, grabbed massive amounts of power from the Legislative Branch, and to a lesser extent, the Judicial branch as well.

The Imperial Presidency, by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., (1973) didn't even foresee how far this drift has gone (I do admit there was some major push-back post Watergate), especially since Bush and 9-11.

[Atticus]

15. Some grist for your ruminations: "On Tyranny", by Timothy Snyder. Small paperback with

a lot of information relevant to today.

[Exotica]

16. thanks! I will check it out

[smirkymonkey]

7. Kicking for later viewing!

[zipplewrath]

4. Violate the Constitution

You'll be asking people who have sworn to uphold the constitution to violate their oaths.
The reason isn't "because it's never been done before". The reason is because there is already a process defined and until we properly change that process, those in power can only stay true to their oaths through the processes that have already been explained to you.

Pence is next. And everyone after that will be equally as unsatisfactory to you as well.

[unblock]

5. i'm all for constitutional hardball, but not for violating the constitution.

there's no constitutional provision for invalidating an election. if donnie is removed, we get pence.
pence can get removed, but realistically, not before he appoints and congress approves a new (republican) veep who would then become president.

assuming we win control of the house starting in january, it's a slightly different story, at least if we're willing to play constitutional hardball. we can remove donnie, pence can become president, but then the democratic majority in the house can refuse to confirm anyone to be the new veep. that spot can remain open until we can remove pence. if we can then remove pence, then pelosi (presumably) would become president.

the only problem there is that we still need 2/3rds of the senate to remove donnie and/or pence, and that still ain't happening. it's possible that things get so bad they'd be willing to remove one of them, because they still keep control of the white house. but they'll *never* agree to remove both of them if that means turning the white house over to a democrat.


that said, once we win big in 2018 and 2020, we can impeach gorsuch or simply add two democratic seats to the supreme court to fix that problem, and take similar action to start to undo the damage and even the score.

[LanternWaste]

9. So in effect, give lip service to the law but ignore it when convenient to do so.

So in effect, give lip service to the law but ignore it when convenient to do so (which is, by its very definition, and as you yourself write, "NOT a reasonable objection to a just disposition" ).

But in case your horrid, smelly plan is in fact, workable, how precisely do you accomplish this while simultaneously remaining faithful to the Constitution and to fairness?

[Atticus]

13. My responses, above, to another poster, answer your question to the extent it can be answered.

As I made clear, I don't have all the answers. I cannot give you a "precise" formula for how we proceed. Does that mean I can't speak my mind? Hope not.

Your characterization of my suggestions as wanting to "ignore the law" is just silly.