Who would be in charge?

[Stinky The Clown]

Indications (NOT proof) are the Russians have compromised a lot of people in one way or another. Much of the administration, including not only the Oval Office, but also the cabinet and advisors.

But wait. There's more.

Members of Congress may be compromised.

But wait. There's even more.

The RNC may be compromised.

Let's say, just for the academic discussion, that it all proves true. Let's just say the evidence is clear.

Who would be in charge of the prosecutions when, indeed, the Justices Department's political leadership is compromised?

And who would run the country if the entire chain of succession is compromised?

I recognize much of this is so unlikely as to be pretty much impossible to happen.

But this thread is about what if.

Who would be in charge?

[5X]

1. by rights, it should be Hillary.

after all, she won the election but it was stolen

[monmouth4]

2. I would like/love, though only temporarily, President Obama to sign a contract with Congress

and jump in for at least six months, perhaps more if necessary, to straighten out as much as could be possible. Then this present administration and its election would be considered null and void. President Obama would stay the six months or at least until a new elected administration is in place. We have never been here before, an untried solution but a possibly workable one.

[Kentonio]

7. Even setting aside the unconstitutionality of it

Even as a theoretical it's an awful idea. The right wing would paint it as a coup, and it would pollute everything about the investigations/trials.

[madamesilverspurs]

3. There are probably a couple

of honorable pathways to safeguard the continuation of the republic. Unfortunately, given the current pack of republicans in control of all the levers of government, "honorable" is unlikely in the extreme.


.

[femmocrat]

4. It would probably come down to Louis Gohmert.

He seems like the only one dumb enough to be rejected but the Russian kompromat!

[outrigger]

5. Idea?

So your idea is to destroy the Republic, in order to save it? Temporarily change the rules because we don't like the results? Sounds like an idea that Trump (or Hitler) would have.....

[pnwmom]

6. The Constitution sets out the order of succession. We have to go by that. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

8. To your point:

From the OP:

Who would be in charge of the prosecutions when, indeed, the Justices Department's political leadership is compromised?

And who would run the country if the entire chain of succession is compromised?

[outrigger]

9. 1947 Succession Act

As per the above, here's a list of everyone you would have to go through in the line of succession BEFORE anything else could happen legally....

Vice President Mike Pence
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
Senate President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin
Secretary of Defense James Mattis
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke
Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue
Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross
Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson
Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao (techically ineligible due to being born inTaiwan)
Secretary of Energy Rick Perry
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos
Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin
Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly

Randomly changing the rules in not the answer....

[Hortensis]

10. Welcome to DU, Outrigger. :) This stuff is quite common

here, but so are intelligent and thoughtful posts. And on the plus side, everyone here is engaged...

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Yo, that is a good answer to someone else's question, maybe, but NOT the questions I asked.

Read the OP s l o w l l y and maybe the question posed will be clearer to you.

[oberliner]

11. Louise Mensch, I think

Or maybe Claude Taylor.

[MineralMan]

12. The limit is the time remaining until the next congressional election.

At that point, the people will have an opportunity to change direction. That is the one thing our system provides as the final safeguard. We can use it if we choose to do so.

[outrigger]

13. Can we?

The same process put us in the current situation. Maybe if we had not fielded such a deeply flawed candidate people would have voted differently. Bernie wasn't the answer either. The real question is, who CAN we field that is the RIGHT answer? Remember, you catch more flies with Honey than Vinegar. Right now every potential 20202 candidate has immersed themselves in a pool of Vinegar and can't seem to figure out how to get themselves out. Sanity needs to return if we want to make things better, but I have little hope of it happening.

[MineralMan]

14. We must deal with 2018 first, and that means working locally.

Time to worry about 2020 and a presidential candidate after that. Wherever you live, you can work in helping Democrats take seats in Congress. I hope you will do that.