2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRemedy for Russian meddling should be new election
It sounds like a story lifted from the pages of a spy novel. U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin led a cyberespionage scheme designed to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.
What's even worse is that Putin's plan worked and Trump now seems to be siding with Russia against U.S. intelligence agencies. It's hard to know how to respond to this because it is unprecedented. But it is essential to take whatever action is necessary to make this right, as difficult, complicated and even uncomfortable as that may be.
The hard reality is that the presidential election we just held was delegitimized by foreign interference. This is not some conspiracy theory or fevered fantasy; it is a conclusion that flows directly from the unanimous assessments of the U.S. intelligence community.
It would be an enormous mistake to ignore this...
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/313776-remedy-for-russian-meddling-should-be-new-election
triron
(22,240 posts)collaborating with the Russians while they were doing it!
We will be the laughing stock of the world.
pbmus
(12,438 posts)LisaM
(28,564 posts)Go unlock a few voting machines in Milwaukee, Detroit, Flint, and Philadelphia, and the problem could go away on its own.
Not that this will ever happen, but....
triron
(22,240 posts)was just removal of voters from being eligible to be counted.
They thought they had voted for HRC and downstream dems but their vote wasn't counted. Some were switched as well but not as many as the former I suspect.
LisaM
(28,564 posts)Who knows?
uponit7771
(91,670 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I believe Stein hurt us in this area. It's amazing how many people think this happened.
longship
(40,416 posts)Just like the Brexit vote, we are stuck with these results.
Of course people already knew this, which kind of boggles the mind why we keep getting these vote again posts.
Only one roll of the dice allowed.
We have to either impeach him (House) and convict him (Senate), or remove him via the 25th amendment. Those are the only processes to change the election. In both cases we would get President Pence.
pbmus
(12,438 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)But I don't think Drumpf lasts through his first term.
Pence is a wacko theocrat.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)...would be required.
I'll give him points for that. Much better than the multitude of "I demand that SCOTUS declares the election null and void and Obama remains in office!!!" posts that seem to be popping up, displaying an embarrassing ignorance of American civics.
longship
(40,416 posts)doc03
(36,623 posts)got tough on Putin he told him "You shouldn't do it".
onenote
(44,483 posts)I hate the fact that Trump has won the presidency as much as anyone here, but articles such as this that are based on magical thinking inevitably are not well thought out.
Let's start with the author's initial premise: "if we can confirm the intelligence report's conclusion that Putin intervened with the goal of electing Trump, there must be a new election in the United States." Well, he seems to think that there is some doubt about that, even though the intelligence community has no such doubts. His solution -- an independent commission that will figure out whether the intelligence community got it right. How they're supposed to do that -- since they will not have any more information than that reviewed by the intelligence communities, is never explained.
It then turns out that despite the attention grabbing lead quoted above, the author acknowledges that figuring out whether Putin attempted to influence the outcome of the election (again, d'uh) is just the first step. Step two is to figure out if that influence (not vote tampering) affected the outcome. The intelligence agencies, he suggests, aren't capable of figuring this out. Does he say why not? Of course not. Instead he says its something that can be done by the same independent commission that could redo the intelligence community's work AND be experts in whatever one would be an expert in to figure out if the Russian attempts to influence the election outcome had a decisive impact. Does he really believe there is some group of experts out there who can figure this out as a definitive matter? The myriad things that influence how people vote vary from one person to the next. Quantifying what is essentially a subjective decision bye looking back in time and guessing what would have happened if only A, but not B through Z, is a joke of an idea and one destined never to produce the convincing outcome needed to support his solution. Stunningly, he also never gives a moment's thought to the possibility that the independent commission finds that there was an attempt to influence but that there's no way to definitively quantify the impact of that effort relative to all the other things that influence voters. Then what? The narrative becomes that Trump's election was legitimate and everyone should just shut up.
Even more absurd, his "solution" blithely assumes not only that this commission can definitively conclude that the Putin intervention in and of itself changed the outcome of the election, but also that its conclusion will be so universally accepted that the nation, heretofore as divided as it can be, will come together in a big kumbaya moment to adopt an amendment to the constitution calling for a new election. How long he thinks this whole process (during which Trump will be president) will take is never addressed. Nor does he address exactly how this special election is supposed to be conducted. Will Trump be out of office by action of this amendment even before a new election? Will he be allowed to run again? How long will the campaign last? Will there be another round of primaries? If not, how will it be determined who gets on the ballot? And how will states conduct this special election? In the end, it won't be a special one-time amendment to the Constitution, it will be a massive legislative enactment masquerading as a Constitutional amendment.
If all of that could be accomplished, why not just impeach Trump and Pence. I know that would leave Ryan as President, but in what universe are repubs going to support this nonsensical new election idea over the faster, cleaner, impeachment route that leaves them certain to still control the White House. Did the author not think of this?
Academics are often unfairly criticized for having their heads in the clouds. This guy has his head somewhere, that's for sure. I weep for his students if this is the kind of thinking they get in the classroom.
pbmus
(12,438 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
onenote
(44,483 posts)rather than impeachment....well, it's not one.
pbmus
(12,438 posts)With all the trappings of a coup supported by some very bad actors...
You are telling me we have no remedy...?
If that is true we are most certainly going to have some dire consequences.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws...where are they..?
onenote
(44,483 posts)Maybe it was too long for you, so I'll summarize:
If the only way to undo Trump's election is to have a super commission study and definitively prove that Putin's influence actually changed the outcome of the election, then its unlikely the election can be undone.
And even if such a commission reached such a definitive conclusion, the chances that 3/4 of the states (33 of which have repub governors) would rush through a "special election" amendment to Constitution the implementation of which would cost millions and would be particularly unattractive to repub leaning states since it could result in a Democrat becoming president, are essentially nil.
Finally, if there is enough sentiment that Trump is not a legitimately elected president to try to remove him, then why not use impeachment. There is at least some chance you'd get repub support for that.
Get it?