The remedy for this COUP isn't Hatch. It's Clinton.

[LaydeeBug]

And anyone with fucking stones will agree.

It just had to be put out there. Thanks

[Foamfollower]

1. There is no constitutional way that can ever happen.

Sad, but true.

[LaydeeBug]

2. "We The People". nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Please point to a provision in the Constitution or a federal statute

that would make this possible, because even after teaching a constitutional law course I'm not aware of any.

[Control-Z]

25. Was there a provision in the Constitution

or a federal statute that made it possible for the SCOTUS to select a POTUS? Serious question.

I've never taken a constitutional law course, let alone taught one. So I've always wondered about that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. They can't directly select a president

but they can decide the constitutionality of election laws.

[Hortensis]

44. Velveteen Ocelot is correct. And I confess I am always

shocked when people on THIS forum display a willingness to ignore the constitution if that would get them what they want. A failure to realize that that is not possible is not reassuring either.

We really need to respect the strength of our constitution that has kept our nation stably based in its principles through centuries of incredible change. It is what will save us from the right-wing attempts to destroy our government and bring us safely through this period of across-the-board insanity.

[cwydro]

76. Thank you.

Of course, not everyone on this forum is necessarily any smarter than your average deplorable lol.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

89. "...if that would get them what they want."

The temptation is tremendous, but either we are a country of laws or we throw it all away and become no better than the worst Republican willing to do whatever it takes -- including the unConstitutional -- to win an election.

[Control-Z]

64. Couldn't they do the same with regard to the

outcome of the 2016 election? Why doesn't someone question the constitutionality of an election won through collusion with a foreign power?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

72. The problem there is that right now there's no relevant law or court decision to decide

the constitutionality of. A criminal act or conspiracy related to election tampering would have to be proved; then it would have to be determined that the crime caused the outcome of the election. So until that happens there's no justiciable controversy that a court can hear. So let's say hard evidence is found proving that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians; some statistician can credibly show that the outcome would have been different otherwise; and some group of plaintiff argues that therefore the election results should be overturned. The immediate problem is that there is no existing procedure for doing this.

Further complicating the situation is the fact that almost all election laws are state and not federal. (Recall that Bush v. Gore was a review of a Florida Supreme Court decision related to how recounts are to be done according to Florida law.) So you'd have to convince all the state supreme courts in those states where the vote was close and that had enough EC votes to make a difference. Then the Supreme Court would first have to accept certiorari (which they might not do), and then review the decisions of all of those courts, which probably were based on different interpretations of different laws, and decide whether those courts' decisions were constitutional or not.

If the Supremes finally decides each of those states' results were tainted maybe they could order that the electors of those states must recast their ballots for Clinton. But we are now probably at least two years into the current administration, probably more. I'm not sure what the political consequences of such a long-shot decision would be. But it's both complicated and improbable.

[Hortensis]

78. Great, thanks. Plus, let's not forget that Rump was ELECTED

legally on November 6. Although there is no significant evidence that our voting counts were manipulated by Russia (plenty of vote suppression by GOP of course), there is LOTS of evidence that Russia attempted to INFLUENCE VOTER CHOICE. Very, very different.

The voters chose. Even if we learn many were influenced by Russian lies, they. decided. to. vote. for. Rump. Can't put that aside. The American electorate legally elected Rump.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Article II, clause 6, in combination with Amendment 25 and a collapsing GOP when tRump toxic enough

It won't happen overnight, and it needs some patriotic Republicons. (Don't give me any binary-thinking BS about "there are no patriotic Republicons.)

[LOL Lib]

10. "We the people"...

Should take a remedial civics class.

[SCantiGOP]

39. The gist of the OP

Is to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional government through extralegal means. It also meets (if one acted on it) the constitutional definition of treason.

I realize it was likely intended as hyperbolic, so I am not attacking any posters here, but these kind of statements make this forum and everyone on it look ridiculous to outsiders who may be checking us out.

[cwydro]

77. Bingo. nt

[Ms. Toad]

53. +1000

[Madam45for2923]

4. FF see I do agree with you here.

I wish so much there was a way for HRC.

A special election.

All I know is that the garbage in OUR Whitehouse needs taking out! PRONTO.

[Eyeball_Kid]

79. What's done is done...

Look at it this way: With HRC in the White House, the Russian influence would never subside, nor would the right wing propaganda network. Further, the RW would still have the presumptive credibility (that they never deserved) to frame the narratives and keep those HRC investigations going. Further still, the Congress would remain GOP, and HRC would be stonewalled just like Obama was stonewalled. HRC's term would be another exercise in stagnant frustration.

Instead, because Trumpy rode in on the Russia money laundering and propaganda wave, we have a GOP much more exposed as cruel, compassionless, and greedy governors. It's potentially far more damaging to the GOP that they WON. My God, there is no greater gift for Dems in the 2018 elections than Trumpy and his circus full of devious clowns, careening from one impeachable and prosecutable disaster to the next.

There WILL be arrests and trials. There WILL be a process by which the GOP will clean house-- and it won't be by their own volition. And there just might be a new president: Orin Hatch. He's by far not close to the best choice. He's a fascist, for sure, but he's got a small sliver of heart and he's getting too old to go ravenous about party politics. Not a bad consequence for a GOP interim president.

[Docreed2003]

12. Not to be that guy but play along with me for a second...

There actually is a way:

Dems take back house in 2018, Clinton is named Speaker of the House, Trump and Pence are both impeached at the same time and she's the next up!

Now, that's not likely to happen, but there is a mechanism for it to happen.

[Foamfollower]

17. I agree

That wholly unlikely scenario would be completely in keeping with the constitution, federal law, and the rules of the House.

That said, the likelihood of that ever happening is somewhere between so remote it's not possible and uh-uh ain't happening.

[Madam45for2923]

32. OHHHHHHH! AWESOME

[stevenleser]

38. There is a second even less likely way

1. Impeachment proceedings begin against Trump and Pence

2. As a condition of being allowed to resign and not be prosecuted afterwards, and because their near treasonous collusion with Russia robbed her of the Presidency, Trump and Pence agree that Pence will resign first and Trump will appoint Hillary VP, then Trump resigns.

[lunamagica]

63. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[LaydeeBug]

75. Damn! That's fucking brilliant. nt

[Turn CO Blue]

57. Alternate: eventually Hatch becomes Pres, names Hillary as his VP then Hatch steps down

[Chellee]

84. Hatch.

Orrin Hatch.

Orrin Hatch becomes President, names Hillary Clinton as his VP, and then steps down.

Uh-huh.

Colorado is treating you well I see.

[Turn CO Blue]

85. Just stop. The point of this subthread was to offer a path for Hill that is LEGAL. I did.

[lunamagica]

60. Not likely, but not impossible

[uponit7771]

88. +1

[L. Coyote]

28. Read Constitution for your first time: Trump resigns, Pence nominates Clinton, Pence resigns.

What could be easier?

And, when you get around to reading it, check out how a new vice-president is approved.

But something bigger may be happening if Gorsuch recusal is true.

Link to tweet

[SCantiGOP]

40. Pence appoints Clinton ?????????????

I look forward to seeing the flying pigs in the sky.

[L. Coyote]

49. The President (Hatch or whoever is left standing) nominates, not appoints.

And the nomination is taken up by Congress.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

73. And Satan driving a Zamboni in Hell.

[onenote]

81. you can rest assured that the Gorsuch recusal rumor isn't true

For one thing, it is up to each Justice to decide whether to recuse themself from a proceeding -- the Chief Justice has no authority to dictate to another Justice whether or not they can participate in a case. Imagine the possibilities for abuse if the CJ could unilaterally decide that one or more Justices can't participate in a case.

So we know that part of the underlying claim is pure nonsense.

In addition, there is nothing from Gorsuch to recuse himself from at the moment.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Since she won the popular vote and most certainly the EC vote

and we would know that if on the ground for decades russian agents working in election precincts didnt flip votes, so you are right.

those states didnt flip ...

Putin and a major league criminal, trump, are in charge and half of america loves it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Be that as it may, it won't happen because there is no constitutional process for it.

The remedy is a Democratic majority in Congress. At least then whatever mutant is in the WH can be somewhat controlled until 2020.

[still_one]

7. Exactly

[athena]

8. No, it's 2018.

That's the real remedy.

Clinton has done what she could. This country has demonstrated that it does not deserve her. It is not up to her to fix this country's problems. We are the ones who need to fix the mess we, collectively, have created.

[itsrobert]

9. Great idea

Elect Schiff as Speaker of the House, impeach Trump and Pence. President Schiff, January 2019. Vice President Yates.

[athena]

15. Nancy Pelosi is going to be the Speaker of the House.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to dump the best leader the Democrats have had in the House just because she happens to be a woman and therefore by definition less sexy to the Left than male members of Congress, who can be outspoken, seek the limelight, and grandstand without being labelled all kinds of nasty things. I have nothing against Schiff, but Nancy Pelosi is a great leader. She is one of the major reasons Democrats are united and are doing as well as they're doing against the assaults from the Republican Party.

Let's focus on winning the House and the Senate without tearing down the existing leaders of the Democratic Party.

[itsrobert]

34. I don't believe she has been an effective leader

What standard is she in any way the best leader the Democrats had in the house?

[athena]

35. Stop propagating sexist lies and inform yourself.

The fact that you think Pelosi is not an effective leader indicates either a breathtaking level of sexism, or utter cluelessness about what has been going on in the House during the past decade.

Nancy Pelosi turns 75 today. She’s still the most effective leader in Congress.

Here's a little secret about Congress: Nancy Pelosi remains the leader that inspires the most fear among her colleagues.

(snip)

But I would argue that Pelosi's last five years in Congress are often overlooked when it comes to assessing her abilities as a pol. Anyone can be regarded as effective when they're on top; people who can continue to lead when times are bad are the true standouts.

(snip)

And, it is true that no one in the House Democratic caucus — or, aside from New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, any other congressional Democrat — can raise money in the quantities Pelosi can. But to focus solely on Pelosi's fundraising ability is to miss the true story of the past few years: her iron grip over her caucus on contentious legislation.

(snip)

Smart politicians, of course, not only adapt to ever-changing circumstances but find ways to make it all work in their favor. That's the story of Pelosi over these past few years. Most politicians — particularly those with their place in history already set — would have walked away amid the troubles she and her party have been forced to navigate since 2010. Pelosi, by contrast, has added an overlooked-but-it-shouldn't-be chapter to her congressional career. She remains the most feared — and therefore, most effective — leader in either party in Congress.

Nancy Pelosi: is this the most powerful woman in US history?

Through several elections and an unpopular war, Pelosi has been instrumental in leading the Democrats back to control of the House of Representatives and then on to a healthy majority. And now, after forging the consensus among deeply divided House Democrats that saw passage of the first significant, if compromised, social legislation in decades, Pelosi is being heralded as the most powerful woman in American history and the most powerful Speaker of the House of Representatives in a century.

(snip)

Pelosi built a reputation for two complementary strengths: forging constituencies among the disparate Democratic Party interests in northern California, and as a formidable fundraiser. Those talents helped propel her to the regional party leadership and then, in 1987, positioned her well to win a seat in Congress that she has held on to through 10 elections, winning by sizeable majorities.

Nancy Pelosi: The Most Effective Speaker of the House in History

As Nancy Pelosi hands off the Speaker’s gavel to John Boehner today, she also hands him a tough act to follow. Despite insistent attempts to malign her during her four years as Speaker of the House, the California congresswoman turns out to have been arguably the most effective person in that post in U.S. history. And it’s not just rah-rah Democrats saying so.

“We’re looking at an extraordinary set of accomplishments over a brief period of time,” said Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “She ranks with the most consequential speakers, certainly in the last 75 years.”

It's clear that some people will not be happy until every single politician in this country is male. Now that Hillary Clinton is not president, they have to denigrate the most powerful and most effective female politician in American history.

[itsrobert]

43. Sexist lies?

She took a Democratic majority and turned it into a GOP supermajority. Fact, not "sexist" lie.

[sweetloukillbot]

50. SHE did nothing of the sort

SHE is not the head of the Democratic Party. If you want to blame someone, blame Obama, but that's bullshit as well.

Democratic voters who decided to sit on their hands because they didn't get their perfect healthcare gave Republicans control.

And the Republicans don't have a supermajority either.

[itsrobert]

56. Starting 40 votes in the hole is not a great place to be

That's certainly a very big disadvantage.

[Hortensis]

69. Hey, now she's super-Nancy, more powerful

than 2 party leaderships overwhelmingly dominated by men, plus an entire electorate, half of whom are male? I'm sorry some are accusing you of misogyny. Wherever your ideas come from, it clearly cannot be that.

[Hortensis]

48. Simple history available to anyone who finds being

knowledgeable more satisfying than pleasurably self-deluded.

Poor Nancy has become a nexus for widespread dissatisfaction and resentment same as Hillary did, just to a lesser degree.

[sweetloukillbot]

66. The deluded people are the ones that think she's actually going to be beaten

Here's the facts - she'll win her district with 80% of the vote. She'll win the leadership role in 2018 by similar margins. She's going to be in Minority or Majority Leader until she retires. And I don't mind because she's damn good at what she does (as was Harry Reid, another target). If someone's pissing off the Right (and she is) she's probably doing something right.
And since the only people I hear complaining about her are Republicans and the loud left that does nothing except complain and sit out elections, I don't really care.

[Hortensis]

70. No quarrel here. But there are also people out there who

resent her all the more because of this. They know Nancy is extremely competent, extremely admired, extremely powerful. In fact, she's...super!

[sweetloukillbot]

19. President Pelosi

We have a very good minority leader who has done an excellent job of keeping her caucus in line and she will get the gavel back.

[athena]

37. Exactly.

It's unfortunate that some people's desire or need to see weakness, ineffectiveness, and incompetence every time they see a woman renders them so blind to the reality.

[Auntie Bush]

62. I would love to have Schiff for our next president.

We might not even have to wait four years. Hopefully only 6 months or so...less than a year.

[MichMary]

92. I just HAVE to ask:

How does Schiff become president in only 6 months?

We have a sitting R president.

We have a sitting R vice president.

We have an R House of Representatives.

We have an R Speaker of the House.

We have an R Senate.

We have an R cabinet.

And that pretty much takes care of the entire line of succession. So--no; there will be no President Schiff/Pelosi/Clinton/any-other-D in six months or one year or two years, even. The next hope we have to see a president with a D next to his name is January 20, 2021.

[delisen]

11. It is that which we must demand

For Democrats to cave on yet the third suspicious election is absurd. One doesn't always get justice but those who do not demand justice defeat themselves and their principles.

...and also make it much more likely that the opposition will continue to cheat.

[Baconator]

13. No fucking way...

What do they call it when you keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

[Still In Wisconsin]

33. I agree completely. This is not about Hillary.

It IS about protecting democracy.

[Thomas Hurt]

14. Another option and just as unlikely and unpopular...

Stop thinking a presidential candidate is a prophet or rock star or a savior and is going to singlehandedly lead America and more specifically Congress to some ideological silver bullet...also wholesale un-election of incumbents in Congress for at least four or five election cycles. One-party hegemony is not the answer. Removing the safety of incumbency is.

Around 70% of incumbents are re-elected and Congress' approval rating is around 20%.

Which only means we hate the performance of politicians we can't do anything about. They know it and thus we have the AHCA.

We generally revile the state of politics and yet we actually do little to change it. We hate politics, we elect one party's candidate to the WH, we let that person stew in office for the full 8 years, we still hate politics, we elect the other party's candidate because he of she is different this time (wink, wink), we let them stew in office for eight years, we hate politics even more, wash, rinse, repeat.

Frankly, that is convenient and easy and it will continue.

[Ligyron]

71. It does seem that way doesn't it?

Well, sometimes anyway...

[vi5]

16. It's not going to be Clinton, but who it is does worry me.

I hate Trump and he is bad for the country but I firmly believe that Pence or Ryan or whatever the other succession is within the party would be just as bad or worse.

As soon as Trump is gone, whoever it is will appear sane by comparison and then we'll hear all about how the "reasonable adults" are back in charge and the media will make calls for "healing" and working together now that Trump is gone. And we all know that according to the media "working together" means giving Republicans every thing they want.

And we all know that once that becomes the media narrative that enough Democrats fall in line with the beltway conventional wisdom and go along to get along.

Nothing will change according to policy or what the Republicans want, it will just have a slightly less orange, moderately less unhinged face on it.

[That Guy 888]

18. I don't understand this post at all. Clinton leading an independent investigation wouldn't fly.

She can't get appointed President.

2018 is a fallback plan, massive protests against our gov't until they implement a truly independent investigation is what we should be working on now.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. The only way for that to legally happen...

...is for whoever the "last man standing" in the line of succession (Pence, Ryan, Hatch, etc) to pick Hillary as his VP and then immediately resign.

Fat chance of that happening.

And I'm highly skeptical we'll get anyone beyond Trump unless their involvement in the mess is at the same or higher level as Trump.

Republicans might give up the albatross that is Trump but they'll fight harder over establishment types like Pence and Ryan.

[enough]

21. A terrible idea that will never happen anyway.

We can't have a system where elections can be overturned at will. That would be the end of the entire structure of constitutional democracy.

[Cooley Hurd]

23. Seconded

[jalan48]

22. She has as much chance as Gore and Kerry-they were also cheated out of the Presidency.

[geek tragedy]

24. The constitution limits 10 years in office.

If one wants an interim replacement until 2020, there's a guy in Chicago who's available ... as long as we're indulging fantasies.

[unblock]

26. Arguably, he's not limited to 10 years

the 22nd amendment only limits who can be *elected* to the presidency. Strictly speaking, it's silent as to who can serve if they succeed to the office.

In theory, someone could serve all but the first day every four years for a lifetime. Cronies get elected president and vice-president, our near-permanent leader is elected speaker of the house, the cronies both resign and voila, president for another 4 years, minus one day. Heck, maybe only a few hours.

[GoCubsGo]

30. Yeah, but we're more likely to see "President Pelosi."

And, I am okay with that. Just have to win back the House and Senate, which is still going to be a tough row to hoe.

[karynnj]

31. Sadly, that can not happen

Consider that even when it was determined that had ALL the Florida votes been recounted, Gore would have won -- nothing happened. Consider that even as Republicans went to jail for spamming the GOTV lines in Manchester, NH in a close race, no one removed Sununu and replaced him with Shaheen. Consider that the election in 2004 was not given to John Kerry when you could make the case that voter suppression by providing too few machines in Ohio cities leading to 4 hour lines cost Kerry more than the votes he lost to Bush by.

The fact is that even if there were a way to prove in 2004 or 2016 that the Democrat would have won a fair election, there is no recourse in the Constitution for correcting the election after electors are assigned and the results tallied in the Congress. In fact, in the Constitution, there is no call for the direct election of the President. In 2000, we learned that if a state's election results were not clear, the state's legislature really was charged with picking the electors. The Constitution, in fact, is less Democratic than we like to think it is.

What the Constitution does have is a line of succession. If Trump is impeached, assuming that Pence was not thrown out for complicity himself (or like Agneau for something else), he will become President. This article, which might best be called fantasy, has not just 2 people (like Nixon, Agneau) being taken down, but has Trump, Pence and then Ryan. This is pretty far fetched. But, let's assume that it is all true - there is a very bizarre and completely unlikely way to get Clinton or someone else. That would follow the Nixon model. Pence would resign or be impeached. Trump would nominate someone for VP who could win 60 votes. Then he would be impeached and this person would become President. So, who could be this year's Ford? I can not imagine anyone that could get 60 votes -- and note to Trump - no to Jared Kushner. Rather than Hatch, maybe we could consider Dick Lugar. Conservative, but a man of integrity and respected internationally.

[Retrograde]

36. Clinton would be a coup at this point

Like it or not - and I certainly do not - Trump won the presidency under the provisions laid down in the Constitution. At this point, the best that can be done is impeachment followed by conviction by 2/3 of the Senate or Pence invoking the 25th amendment.

What we can do now is keep pressure on our Senators and Representatives, correct the falsehoods the Trump people are spreading, and make sure that as many people as possible are able to go to the polls in 2018. Which means we also need to keep pressure on state and local elected officials to make sure no more onerous voter laws are put in place, and that voting is accessible to all registered voters.

[lark]

41. In a sane world, yes.

However this is insane, Repugs have all the power and they aren't about to share for any reason and there's no one to make them act or the good of the country, instead of installing a dictatorship or 4th reich of the rich. They would rather destroy the country and all it's laws rather than give up power. At least, that's what's happening at this point and I really don't expect them to suddenly grow a conscience.

[bucolic_frolic]

42. If such turmoil unfolds

Senate as well as elder statesmen will hash out a solution.

If power devolved as far down as Hatch and he wanted legitimacy and healing,
he would pledge bipartisanship and make it stick. That might involve him nominating
a centrist, even Democratic, Vice President. The Senate would hold confirmation hearings.

Difficult to see how Democrats would ultimately hold much power unless
they held a majority, but with a few opportune indictments, one never knows,
as such things are abuzz on alt Twitter feeds these days.

[nocalflea]

45. Was Hillary robbed ? I believe so.

That being said , consider the mood of the nation. This nation will need to heal. Think of all the centrist americans who have bought into the idea of Clinton as corrupt.She will not be accepted as legitimate.We as a nation do not need more internal warfare . Trust is paramount .Hillary is not trusted by a large swath of the nation. Do not forget the opinion polls on this issue during the election.

Unfair to Hillary ? Yes-she would be a terrific president. I think of her in FDR terms- a game changer.Her loss is our loss.Unfortunately , she is not the answer.Not Now.Not after this.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

46. If it seems impossible

one might consider experiencing the unbelievable on a daily basis since the election . Willy Nelson at the sudden rise of the tea party pitched an off handed idea out there, he said (they have a tea party,why not start a tea pot party.Power is after all in the numbers isn't it.

[JHB]

47. If I may engage in some wishful thinking...

...admittedly at "snowman frolicking in a tropical summer"-level of unreality, here's the only scenario where that works:

Prosecutions remove Kremlin Don, Pence, and Ryan from office, and per the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 the presidency falls to the President pro tempore of the Senate, Orrin Hatch.

Now here comes the REALLY fantasy part:

Hatch has an ounce of honor in him and appoints Hillary as vice president. And then resigns so that the actual winner of the 2016 election can take office.

Yes, it's wishful-as-all-hell thinking, but it's also the only constitutional path to Clinton taking office in this cluserf***.

[jmg257]

51. And just what shall she be doing? Leading a

Revolution?

A goofy "remedy" suggestion.

[Bradical79]

52. Impossible -nt

[DrDan]

54. Uh . . . How does that work?

Let's get real

[mvd]

58. Agree, but I sure would like to roll it back

Even if we find that Trump people with Russian help hacked the voting machines, impeachment is the best we can do under the Constitution.

[SMC22307]

55. What *exactly* do you think is going to happen?

Seriously.

[TDale313]

59. Wish there were a way. There's really not.

No provision in our constitution allows for that remedy.

[JesterCS]

61. God can we stop with Her Royal Highness?

She didn't win, whether it be hacked voting or people just fed up with the establishment. Constant wishfully speaking will not help her, or anyone else. Worry about midterms and the current treason in the Exec Branch

[lunamagica]

67. She was the people's choice (by MILLIONS). Royal Highness? That's says it all.

This is a discussion board. You don't control it.

If you don't like a thread, skip it, trash it and move on to the next thread

It is really easy!

[JesterCS]

86. But flip side is....

It's a discussion board, so I can post my opinion

[nocalflea]

90. Post on Jester . And you're right, we have bigger fish to fry.

[democratisphere]

65. Why should the redumbliCON thieves be rewarded with retaining the WH.

When drumpf is impeached, his replacement should only be HRC.

[lunamagica]

68. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

74. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

Please read the Constitution and Article 25.

[democratisphere]

82. This situation has never been confronted before; an actual stolen election.

We shall see what happens.

[beaglelover]

83. Is it Fitzmas yet???

I prefer to live in reality.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

87. No, not unless you want to ignite --

a civil war.

There is no way, no how she will become President should Trump go, so you better just get that idea out of your head right now.