Enough evidence is produced to confirm that Trump & co colluded with the Russians and/or others to influence the election
AND
It is deemed (somehow? By someone?) that that influence was enough to affect the outcome; if he hadn’t done it, Hillary would have won.
So what do we do then? In a perfect world, the election would be declared invalid and either a new one would be held or Trump & Pence would be booted out and Hillary sworn in, and all his XO’s would be voided. However, neither seems very likely.
What would happen in that scenario? What do we do with that information, as a nation?
I’m picturing at the very least that when a list is made of presidents, there’s an asterisk next to his name like that of sports players who cheated their way into a record book.
No do-overs. As much as some people might want it, it’s just not in the rule book. Best case you get is you impeach Trump and Pence, and remove them from office. But it won’t happen like folks around here want. It’ll be Trump first, and then Pence becomes president, with someone (with an R next to his or her name) taking the VO slot. Or, we get president Ryan.
HRC is not going to be president and neither is Nancy Pelosi. Not unless they decide to run for the office in the future and win.
Legally, it has no effect on his presidency. Once the Electoral College voted him in and the Chief Justice administered the oath, he became President. There’s no procedure for invalidating that.
Realistically, there would be a major movement to impeach him and remove him from office.
Why couldn’t a court rule on that in the same manner as courts rule on other election results?
Suppose a court (not sure if this would be federal or state) were to rule that the duly-elected electors from such-and-such state(s) were not the ones who did the voting, then the Electoral College vote would be invalid, and would have to be done again.
I would think it would be something of a logistical nightmare if this happened, since this would mean that any action done by a Trump-appointed person (including appointed judges) would retroactively become invalid, as well as any laws he signed or where Pence cast a tie-breaking vote.
So somehow I have to think no court would ever issue such a ruling. But what’s the legal basis for saying that a court couldn’t do it?
I am no big fan of stare decisis, but it’s been a year and change. Plus, how on earth would you ever be able to determine “these votes don’t count because of Russian bots on FaceBook but these are fine”?
Sometimes a final decision is better than a correct decision. If Trump did something illegal, impeach him. If not, you are going to have to live with it.
I don’t think there would be any basis for invalidating a vote due to its being influenced by Russian bots. I thought the question was if the actual voting machines had been hacked.
I don’t know if the OP is assuming that Trump colluded with the Russkis in hacking the voting machines, but it doesn’t change my answer. The elections have been certified. It’s a done deal.
I’m not a lawyer, but AIUI, impeachment would be the only real option. I doubt that the current Congress would impeach for almost any reason, though. If Mueller releases results that are as clear and convincing as in your scenario, and does so in the next few months, I think we as a nation use that information to inform our voting choices in the midterms. Given our recent track record as a nation, however, I’m not real optimistic.
The Constitution says that whoever wins the electoral college is the President. No do-overs allowed. Even if all the voting machines were tampered with, the boat has sailed. Trump is the President.
But if Trump conspired (I’m tired of the word “colluded”) with a foreign power to undertake political activity, he deserves impeachment. Pence, as part of the ticket, would probably be tainted beyond redemption, too, even if he claims ignorance. So we end up with President Paul Ryan, and there will be new elections coming along shortly to gauge the approval of the American people with the powers that then be.
How can you impeach the President for illegitimacy but not the Vice President? He has to go too, obviously. Then: Would the Speaker, elected by far fewer people than either, really be accepted by the public, especially one from the party which received the minority of votes?
There’s a way. The Speaker does not have to be a House member even if all of them so far have been. Arrange for the House to elect the rightful winner of the Presidential election as Speaker at the right moment.
Let’s say that a week before the election UK Prime Minister Theresa May said that she supported Hillary Clinton and urged all Americans to vote for her. Hillary then wins.
Suppose that it could be empirically shown that May’s endorsement put Clinton over the top. Would that make the election results bad or invalid?
What do we do? The same we always have (in spite of the fact this is the first time this particular situation has happened): correct the mistakes using legal means–by that I mean a new congress makes laws to reverse any damage caused, and we elect a new president who won’t do what this buffoon has done. And then sheep will fly.
At least, I’m confident that’ll happen. But first, we have to make sure the Russians don’t interfere with our elections again. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be a priority in Washington.
Who is going to “arrange” that? The constitution is clear on the order of succession, and the Speaker in #3. Saying that the people won’t accept a constitutional action is a big so what? There’s another election in a few years, and they can kick him out if they want. The people don’t like a lot of SCOTUS decisions, but we carry them out anyway. It’s called rule of law.
Neither party would willingly give the presidency to the other party, and the Republicans certainly aren’t go to do so.