Loretta Lynch could file federal charges against Trump for High Treason NOW!

[ElementaryPenguin]

And the Supreme Court could make a ruling on that - even the same day. The evidence is there - and I believe that Anthony Kennedy would very likely make it a 5-3 vote against Trump.

History may judge the two of them as actually saving the country.

Trump is not President. You can't impeach him yet, and you don't need to. If Trump were to commit murder in broad daylight right now, he would be arrested, and he would not be sworn in as President on Jan. 20th. Nor should he be sworn it when the evidence now suggests that he's committed high treason (and there is undoubtedly plenty more classified evidence).

Yes, this is as far-fetched as it gets - and the longest of long shots (but consider how long the odds were against us being in the situation we're now in). But this could be legally done, couldn't it?

Ultimately, Trump would be pardoned by President Hillary Clinton.

(My apologies to pbmus - for this was inspired by their thought - no one seemed to be responding anymore)

[vlyons]

1. Lynch and Obama should have fired Comey way back when

[ElementaryPenguin]

2. Yes.

And they can make amends for it now.

[triron]

3. Have no idea of legality

but would sure like to see it happen.
I feel is he must be guilty of some felony if not treason
from what I know now. Seems Rachel Maddow came very close to saying that last nite too.
And I take back my suggestion that Obama declare martial law; probably not viable and a bad idea anyway. I am just desperate; this craziness is really getting to me. Does not seem real.

[ElementaryPenguin]

4. Crazy circumstances - perhaps requiring

Crazy solutions.

[triron]

6. Maybe there is a genius somewhere

that will leak the way to Obama?

[ElementaryPenguin]

15. I'd love to read in history books that Obama

was actually on the phone with both Lynch and Kennedy today.

Why the hell not try?

How much more can we possibly lose - than what we stand to lose?

[longship]

33. With Justice Kennedy?

Obviously some people here have absolutely no concept of separation of powers!

Read your damned US Constitution!!!!!

And then read about Watergate and the separation of powers within the US Constitution.

A fucking US President does not just call up a US Supreme Court justice and plea a case, unless he wants to be justifiably impeached and removed from office! Remember that Barack Obama is a noted constitutional scholar.

[ElementaryPenguin]

36. What I'm interested in is finding any - even out of the box solutions

That might save this country. I am not interested in impressing some entity called "longship". (I happen to have read the constitution - am a former law student, and lived through Watergate - which I followed closely.) I was not suggesting that Obama "plea the case to Kennedy." It is naive to think that no one speaks to each other in Washington. If there are indirect channels for Obama to communicate to the leaders of Russia or China, there are certainly ways to communicate with the other members of branches of government. You can bet Lyndon Johnson (was he before your time?) would not have hesitated to contact Supreme Court justices. (Like Earl Warren, for example,).

I'm very happy that Pres. Obama (whom I greatly admire) can keep his squeaky clean image untarnished - as we are about to LOSE OUR SOVEREIGN NATION!!!!!!!!!!

And yes, I do, understand SEPARATION OF POWERS!!!!! You apparently have no concept of the potential catastrophe before us - and would like to continue to be the Democrat that brings a knife to a gunfight!!

I DON'T!!

[longship]

37. Than you should clearly understand that POTUS' surrogate to SCOTUS is the Soliciter General...

Who is requested via the Attorney General to intervene when a case comes before SCOTUS, and not fucking before!!!

And if you do not understand that it would be inappropriate for a sitting president to contact a sitting justice with regards to a putative case, I can not help you on separation of powers let alone SCOTUS procedures.

I would not want somebody who does not understand these things representing me, and I am not a lawyer.

But go ahead when you get to be POTUS and try out your hypothesis. But be forewarned, if there was an abuse of power Article of Impeachment in front of me, I would vote FOR the article under such circumstances.

Your anger icons do not sway me.

Best regards. Have a hug. Or two.

[ElementaryPenguin]

41. Don't worry, LS - I will likely not get to be POTUS to try out my hypothesis,

for Donald Trump will quite likely be the LAST U.S. President.

Enjoy freely expressing yourself on the internet while you still can.

Three hugs for you, comrade.

P.S. The detail of the Solicitor (proper spelling) General's role in this was not the least bit relevant to our argument - so you needn't have tossed that in there - whether you just looked it up now or not - we are very impressed with your expertise ...and also your use of the f-word - which, also having once been a college linebacker, I am pretty proficient at dropping myself. Peace.

[longship]

48. I did not laugh at you, my friend.

I would expect a modicum of politeness.
Not sure that I will get that here.

I still maintain that it would be inappropriate for a sitting POTUS to directly contact a sitting SCOTUS justice with regards to a putative case before the same court. I would like to hear an argument why that would be in anyway appropriate when POTUS specifically has a department and specific personnel delegated to deal with such matters.

Then there's the matter that SCOTUS has their ways, separate from the Executive Branch. I imagine that they are a bit sensitive and protective in these matters.

[triron]

38. Glad that you are ardent about this!

Well said.

[ElementaryPenguin]

42. Thanks for that.

I don't really mind being ridiculed for suggesting any Hail Mary solutions. It's EASY to criticize. What could have been wilder that what has already transpired...and what transpired in 2000 - when Fat Tony Scalia stepped in an appointed Bush as President??

If there's a one-in-a-million chance to motivate someone, that's worth trying for. The truth is, the Supremes could be approached and do pretty much what they like - even it's not Kosher. Will it be done? Not likely. Could something be done? Possibly. Would the GOP try if the situation was reversed and Russia had appointed Hillary President?

You KNOW the answer to that!

[longship]

49. First there has to be a case!! And you damned well know it

[dionysus]

62. By this point, it is embarrassing for DU. My cat is facepawing.

[jalan48]

5. Lynch could have stopped Comey right before the election. She didn't.

Why would she file treason charges against Trump?

[ElementaryPenguin]

7. Because more evidence has now come to light!

MUCH more.

[jalan48]

14. She was Comey's boss. She could have told him not to release the "new" info on Clinton's emails.

She's not going to do anything now.

[ElementaryPenguin]

21. You may be right but no one knows that for a fact. She could...

Perhaps she can be pressured. It isn't like it can't be done. For Chrissakes - given the stakes how can anyone hold back and not turn every stone.

[jalan48]

34. I would like it to be the case but her past actions say no.

[Wellstone ruled]

27. Tend to agree with you on this,

Mr.Obama has been overly cautious not to piss off the Right wing establishment,knowing their Media scourges will launch a all out media campaign attacking him for reverse segregation and anti white crap. Limpnuts would just love something like this.

[ElementaryPenguin]

30. I say let 'em launch

They spew the damn venom all the time anyway! How did being reasonable with them ever help Obama's cause? It never did - NOT EVEN ONCE!!

[dionysus]

66. Adventure! Melodrama! Escape from... reality! Welcome to GD:P

Ohhhh do we have melodrama folks!

[shadowrider]

8. That would be President Pence

Since Trump was certified.

Point of order.

[PoliticAverse]

9. "Point of order" - Point of reality. n/t

[ElementaryPenguin]

11. There isn't much "reality"

Going on our political landscape right now.

[PoliticAverse]

12. There's plenty of reality that many people can't accept.

Reality is often quite unpleasant.

[ElementaryPenguin]

19. The "Reality" is that the Supreme Court can rule as they please

NO ONE gets to overturn them on the spot.

[onenote]

56. The reality is that folks like Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan

have too much respect for the Constitution to tear it to shreds as you seem to think they would.

[ElementaryPenguin]

10. Pence cannot become President without becoming Vice-President

Which he isn't - Joe Biden is.

[Lurks Often]

23. You might want to read the 20th Amendment to the US Consitution, it disagrees with you

[ElementaryPenguin]

25. Lurks, I just read it - thank you. This is a very convoluted argument, but

The Vice-President elect will act as President until a President is qualified. If the Supreme Court vacated the result of the election due to the hacking fraud perpetrated by the Trump Campaign (there is a precedent for this - a federal court vacated the election result of an fraudulent election in Pennsylvania in '95 (because of fraud) - declaring the opponent the victor - and this was upheld by the Supreme Court) - then, in this case, Hillary Clinton would be declared the President - not the Vice-President elect.

[Lurks Often]

29. No the House of Representatives would then determine who becomes President

and SCOTUS isn't going to touch this with a 50 foot pole.

There is no scenario in which Hillary Clinton becomes President on 1/20/17.

[ElementaryPenguin]

35. No. The House only chooses if the President-elect dies and there is not a Vice-President elect

that qualifies. Congress acts by law - which Dems could block (and wouldn't it need to be ratified - signed by Pres. - like any law) if neither the President-elect or Vice-President-elect qualify.

[onenote]

57. You have a very flawed understanding of the 20th amendment.

Under the 20th amendment, if the president elect dies before taking office, the VP becomes president. If there is no qualified president elect, which would be the situation you've imagined, then the VP becomes President. And if there is neither a qualified president nor a qualified VP on inauguration day, then who becomes acting president is determined by Congress. Congress has made that determination -- in the Presidential Succession Act. The acting president would be Paul Ryan. Not Hillary Clinton.

[triron]

32. Unless the was good evidence

Pence was complicit.

[zagamet]

13. Duty to Act not SCOTUS'

That wouldn't look political at all.

The election is certified by Congress. If Trump were to shoot someone on 5th avenue today, he'd probably be locked up - and still become President at 12:01 Jan 20th.

If he were to shoot someone on Federal property he would still become Presideht on Jan 20th and could then pardon himself.

The Constitution prescribes a remedy for removing a President for criminal activity and it isn't SCOTUS; it's Congress. If brought to SCOTUS, if the case were taken at all, it wouldn't be 5-3 in favor. It'd be 7-1 or 8-0 against. There's no way to interpret the Constitution's remedies otherwise: the duty to act lies with Congress.

[ElementaryPenguin]

17. Right. But Wrong. Show me where in the Constitution

That it's written that the Supreme Court can step in and prevent a state from selecting it's own electors - as the Supremes did in 2000 when they stopped the recount that the Florida Supreme Court had lawfully prescribed for itself??

[onenote]

58. While I think the Court decided Bush v. Gore incorrectly

at least they were acting on a case brought under a specific Constitutional provision (the equal protection clause, which a 7-2 majority agreed was violated by the state's use of different standards to recount votes rather than a uniform statewide standard). And it relied on a specific Constitutional provision when it concluded (5-4) that they lacked the authority to delay federally mandated deadline for Congress, as the branch of government specifically granted the authority in the Constitution to count electoral votes, had set for resolving controversies over electoral vote certifications.

If anything, that case, which expressly is not entitled to treatment as a precedent in any other case, supports the conclusion that the Supreme Court can't create the remedy you seem to think they can create.

[PoliticAverse]

16. "he would be arrested, and he would not be sworn in as President on Jan. 20th"

There is no Constitutional provision that prevents someone who has been arrested, indicted or even jailed, from
becoming president.

[ElementaryPenguin]

18. There doesn't have to be. The Supreme Court can (AND DOES) rule as they please.

And the constitutionality of their actions may be debated afterwards - but who reverses them on the spot? NO ONE!

[zagamet]

28. And then what?

And then who becomes President on Jan 20th?

There can only be one President at a time. It would be a Constitutional crisis of the first order to have multiple people claiming the right to hold the office simultaneously. THIS above all else is why we've spent 200 plus years cementing the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power.

More to the point, if you were a member of SCOTUS, would you want your legacy to be the creation of simultaneous claims by 1. President Elect, 2. Vice-President Elect, 3. Vice President, and 4. House Speaker to become the next President and the absolute destruction of governmental validity that would create?

And then various States would get involved, doubling down on the chaos. What happens when Texas refuses to allow its citizens to send their tax dollars to "The illegal Biden Administration"? What happens when the Oklahoma Gov issues a standing arrest warrant for "the illegitimate President and Constitutional Usurper"?

Look. Trump was elected by a base whose main goal is to bring down the validity of the federal government. SCOTUS getting involved at the last minute would give them everything they hope to achieve. It would be utterly destructive to the validity of the federal government as an institution.

[ElementaryPenguin]

44. Trump was not elected by the American people

He was selected by Vladimir Putin to do his bidding. Trump and his insane Administration will be utterly destructive to the validity of the federal government we have had for 240 years - and we will morph into the 4th Reich.

[CentralMass]

20. I think that the AG position is just ceremonial these days. They have no power.

[ElementaryPenguin]

22. Not true.

[CentralMass]

43. There is no recent demonstrable proof of that

[ElementaryPenguin]

47. Agreed.

[greytdemocrat]

24. Are you feeling ok???

[ElementaryPenguin]

26. Definitely not!!

Are you??

[underthematrix]

31. There is NO political, legal or judicial solution to a coup.

[fleur-de-lisa]

40. Thank you!

Best post in this thread! We are in uncharted waters.

[ElementaryPenguin]

45. We certainly are in uncharted waters...

And the Constitution does not lay out every possible scenario for us. If an action were before them - whatever the Supreme Court ending up ruling would be a new precedent. Again, NOTHING in the Constitution suggested that Scalia could stop the state recount in Florida - denying the state the ability to select it's own electors - but Fat Tony did it anyway - and it was accepted - and God knows all that has been ultimately unleashed as a result.

[ElementaryPenguin]

46. You may be correct, and T. Jefferson might concur...

But I hope you're not.

[uponit7771]

51. This is false.... Put those who are part of the cout on jail before they're put in office

[triron]

52. Yep!

[underthematrix]

53. Tell me how you think that would happen

with an FBI director who was involved in facilitating the coup?

[2naSalit]

76. +1

[cjbgreen]

39. grand jury

I'm not an attorney but it seems as though the information and evidence should involve a grand jury. At the very least the phone calls to Russia after the sanctions seem to be fall into the category of treason.

[Brother Buzz]

50. Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a HAM sandwich. - Sol Wachtler

And never mind Judge Sol Wachtler was himself later indicted.

[onenote]

59. have you ever been on a grand jury?

Do you think that some prosecutors (the 'good' ones) have perfect records of getting an indictment in every case that they present?

[Brother Buzz]

60. No, and no, but I understand a good prosecutor can be very persuasive

Especially when one understands, unfortunately by design, the Grand Jury generally does the DA's bidding because he owns the game.

[triron]

54. knr

[onenote]

55. You say you're a former law student. You should ask for your money back

Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)

First, at most the AG can work with the US Attorney's office to determine whether to commence a prosecution, which will generally require a grand jury.

Second, the written principles guiding federal prosecutions require that there be a determination of probable cause -- and in this instance, given the Constitutional limitations on treason charges -- no prosecution for treason could be brought.

Third, the case you presume to have brought wouldn't start at the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS' original jurisdiction is very limited.

Fourth, in a couple of posts you reference a court case in which a district court judge reversed the outcome of an state legislative election after a lengthy trial involving the presentation of evidence of election fraud (including admissions by several parties directly involved in the fraud) as well as evidence establishing to the court's satisfaction that disallowing the fraudulent votes (absentee ballots) would have resulted in the election of the candidate who lost because of the fraudulent votes. The facts of that case are not remotely similar to the situation currently confronting us and the suggestion that it stands as precedent for the same remedy in a case involving a presidential election (which unlike state legislative elections are governed by the US Constitution and, also, are not resolved based on who gets a plurality of the popular vote) is baseless.

Fifth, its unimaginable that someone could complete law school and think that a decision by the Supreme Court to deny certiorari (which is what happened in the Marks v. Stinson case referenced above) constitutes a decision to "uphold" the result in such case. As the Supreme Court, expressing some frustration with such claims, explained: 'Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated. The one thing that can be said with certainty about the Court's denial of [a petition for certiorari]is that it does not remotely imply approval or disapproval of what was said by the [court below]."

Finally, you somehow think that if your plan, and I use that term as loosely as its ever been used in history, works, Hillary Clinton will be president. Again, Constitution. Unlike the Marks v. Stinson case, there is a Constitutional provision that addresses what happens if the president elect can't take office on January 20. And it doesn't provide for the losing candidate to take over.

[JCanete]

64. What are the Constitutional limitations on treason charges? Just interested. nt

[onenote]

67. Link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2674244

[ElementaryPenguin]

69. This "idea" of mine is admittedly a desperate one...

And I appreciate you pointing that out to me. Again, I want you to show me where it is written in the Constitution that the Supreme Court can step in and prevent a state from determining it's own electors - as the Supremes did in 2000 - stopping a recount that would have left Al Gore as the winner in Florida - and the President - whereas the foul Fat Tony Scalia and his gang essentially appointed George W. Bush as President. I would submit that Vladimir Putin has done the same thing this election.

The 20th Amendment - adopted in 1933 - obviously did not foresee electronic voting fraud, fake internet news, and a whole host of modern issues we are now confronted with - and may be about to cost us our form of government. Your legal scholarship is, again, appreciated, but unfortunately does not get us out of a predicament would should not be in. I understand we are a nation of laws - but the other side isn't playing by them - not the GOP - and certainly not Putin isn't obliged to. The strict adherence to some of these rather arbitrary dates (over the accuracy and validity of the vote count) is incredibly absurd - as absurd as the electoral college has become for us. (But of course, that is another debate).

My personal education and work history is not a part of this debate (though, admittedly, I was the one who brought it up). It's true that I was a law student, and my father was an attorney. I later clerked for him, as well as a few other law firms - supporting myself with it for a time - but I did not complete law school, as I went into an entirely different field.

Look - I understand this is a crazy notion I'm suggesting here. I'm just trying to float ideas out there that perhaps others can build on - and perhaps develop. Some are stronger and more feasible than others. This one may be more flawed than others. I believe we're all on the same side here - and our arguments are fine to have, and overall constructive. When I've gotten personal, I've regretted it - but these are frustrating times for any Americans (particularly progressive ones) who give a damn!

[Lurks Often]

72. It's not desperate, it's a fantasy

[ElementaryPenguin]

73. Perhaps.

Call it what you will. It's not nearly as insane as what is actually transpiring!

[onenote]

74. And I appreciate your more measured tone.

I get the frustration we all feel as the date of Trump's inauguration approaches. But the reality is that there is no Hail Mary that's going to save us from his getting sworn in as President.

From my perspective, the time for wishing for a different outcome is past. The time now is to put our resources and thinking into ways, both political and legal, of stopping/impeding the Trump/GOP agenda.

[ElementaryPenguin]

75. I understand where you're coming from...reality.

I think I was rooting for a miscarriage of justice in reverse - Bush vs. Gore with the tables turned. Hard for me to walk away from this and just accept that the will of the people is simply not going to carry the day. Democracy perverted. And I believe Trump is indeed a traitor - involved in a conspiracy that resulted in stealing this election. The man is so pathetic, I have not a shred of respect for him, and I cannot stand to see him allowed to get away with it. But you're right. The thing to do is oppose and obstruct him at every turn - to whatever degree it can be done.

I remain confident that the ignorant, pompous fool will do himself in. We just have to give him enough rope.

[Dan]

61. That will never happen - but the American people, when they have had enough of this can

change the government.

All we have to do is look at other countries... quite simply this:

First the Federal Government workers stop working/showing up to work.

Then the State Government workers working/showing up to work.

Then the Local Government workers stop working/showing up to work.

Finally, ALL of us decide to quit working and showing up to work.

Hopefully all on the same day - this happens and we the people sit out from and until - there is change.

Change where this government starts to represent the American people, not just the rich and those with influence.

But it will take the American people to decide that our government 'of the people for the people' is worth fighting for, not before and not until.

My thoughts.

[ElementaryPenguin]

71. Good post, Dan.

[dionysus]

63. Good lord, this is the most foolish thing i've read today.

[FBaggins]

65. Welcome to the 2016 Postmortem forum!

You must be be here.

[ElementaryPenguin]

70. Try reading your President-elect's tweets for this day - or any day!

[UCmeNdc]

68. Everybody is afraid to act. They do not know what to do.

The people on the inside do not know which way to turn.