We managed it somehow, twice. Are you saying Gore should have been automatically impeached?
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry if I was unclear. The “nonsense” I was referring to was the fantasy that the House is going to pick HRC as Speaker and then impeach Trump and Pence at the same time (and get the Senate to convict), all so that HRC can take her “rightful” place as President. Snowballs have significantly better odds in Hell.
I think the assumption is that if the election was “illegitimate” that the VP would be considered “illegitimate”, too. That is to say that if the Congress thought the president should be impeached and removed from office because the election was rigged, then they would probably get rid of the VP for the same reason. But there is nothing to say that Congress must do that, and for partisan reasons they might very well not.
However, if they did, my point still stands. If the GOP controls the House, they are not going to hand the presidency over to the Democrats. Not gonna happen.
there have been a few local elections that were held over. I believe in 1 of them nobody voted at all , not even the guy running unopposed. He could not be declared the winner with 0 votes.
Decent shot Pelosi is 3rd in line this time next year and the investigation could easily carry on until then.
God, I hope the Democrats gets some new blood into that office if they win back the House. But there is ZERO chance that both Trump and Pence are impeached and removed from office. You heard it here first! 
What would you personally put the odds at of a bunch of R Senators joining with the D’s to remove both Trump and Pence from office if it meant President Pelosi?
ETA: ninja’d by John Mace 
The post I was responding to said that even if Trump and Pence were removed you’d just get Ryan. That’s not necessarily true.
I would think if it was demonstrably shown that both were complicit, the GOP would stagger removals such that Pence would appoint his VP (hand picked by the remaining GOP leadership probably) before Pence was removed. But if the choice for the GOP was civil war or Pelosi as POTUS, I think we see Pelosi.
Why would the choice be “civil war or Pelosi as president”?
What factions do you envision fighting this civil war?
What kind of metric would be used to prove that Russian disinformation efforts changed American’s minds about Hillary? What would those metrics look like?
I honestly don’t know the answer to this question, but I would guess somewhere here knows - has any voter surfaced who said she or he was going to vote for Hillary, but changed her or his mind solely after seeing Russian propaganda, and now regrets it?
If someone was denied to chance to vote because of irregularities at the polling place, or some other kind of chicanery, you will usually see them on the news expressing anger that their vote was stolen - shouldn’t we expect to see thousands of voters with buyer’s remorse who are angry and want to change their ballot, or something?
Don’t fight the hypothetical, dude.
Heh are you kidding? Better polish up your rifles.
But it wouldn’t be because she’s Pelosi, but because she’s a Democrat. Rationalizations can always be found if needed, no matter for whom.
Arizona Mike’s point is a good one, though.
If the hypothetical is just that Russia did in fact engage in a massive disinformation campaign - which isn’t a hypothetical, it’s true, and they continue to do it - you cannot objectively demonstrate that the election results were changed. There’s nothing that can be done, at least domestically.
If the hypothetical is that Donald Trump personally conspired with the Russians to engage in said disinformation campaign, and there is clear evidence he did so, he must be impeached - no matter what effect it had on the results. If you can prove Trump colluded with the Russians it makes no different at all if that collusion tipped the election. It wouldn’t matter if he won the election by the margin Reagan won by in 1984.
I suggest you re-read the OP, particularly with respsect to the bolded sections of your post.
The hypothetical isn’t just “we have discovered conclusive evidence that Trump conspired with Russians,” but also that it is established by some means that are not clear that this conspiracy changed the vote outcome.
If you want to maintain that #1 of the hypothetical is sufficeint for whatever you want to propose, I understand. But Mike was saying that #1 does not necessarily lead to #2, when the situation proposed is that we have smoking gun evidence in this alter dimension that #2 occurred.
You do have rifles, right?
There is a serious political risk for the Democratic Party in going that route, though, and that may be one of several factors why the DNC senior leadership is cautioning against impeachment proceedings, at least at this time. And that risk is exposing the level of foreign influence in American elections by governments other than Russia.
For example, British Labour Party members on loan to the DNC were actively campaigning for Hillary in swing states (Lots Of British People Are In The US Campaigning For Hillary Clinton). Huge amounts of British government (well, British taxpayer-funded) foreign aid money was washed through the highly unfungible Clinton Foundation shortly before the election - about 50 million pounds worth. That kind of money would have bought a lot of influence with the Clintons on economic and political issues in which the British government is interested. Had the situation involved Russia, with volunteers from Putin’s United Russia party campaigning in Wisconsin, or the donation of an equivalent amount to a Trump-funded charity, the impeachment process would already have been concluded by now.
The fact that the United Kingdom is an ally, and Russia is anything but, doesn’t really change the ethics of the situation.
That’s not even considering the vast amount of donations to the Clinton Foundation from potentates of governments whose leaders are far less friendly to the U.S and western interests than the U.K. Just by looking up the information the Clintons provide on their own website (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000), I can see that in the 10 million to 25 million dollar donation range, the Clintons received donations from not only Australia and Norway and the Dominican Republic, but also Saudi Arabia. Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Brunei all gave $1-5 million each. That buys a lot of campaign ads, and we know that once the Clintons are bought, they stay bought.
Do you know exactly how much money the Saudis donated to the Clinton slush fund? No? Neither does anyone else, really - because it is a private foundation, they are not required to provide that information to journalists, nor anyone else, as the left-leaning Politifact found (PolitiFact | Fact-checking donations to the Clinton Foundation). Under an agreement demanded by then-President Obama, then-Secretary of State Clinton had to identify the donors, but not how much they actually donated. So we know that the Saudi government, as well as billionaires associated with it gave large donations (somewhere between $10 million to $25 million) to the Clinton Foundation.
Some other wealthy, and presumably goverment-influential individuals who supported the Clinton Foundation include Issam Fares, former deputy prime minister of Lebanon in the pro-Syria government of Prime Minister Omar Karami ($1-5 million), Saudi billionaire Nasser Al-Rashid ($1-5 million) Amar Singh, an influential member of the Indian parliament whose party supported the Indian government’s push for a nuclear deal with the U.S ($1-5 million); Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and one of the world’s richest men ($1-5 million); and Indian business tycoon Lakshmi Mittalhead of ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steel producer.
Some of that political influence that is purchased in the U.S. goes to both parties, but it seems likely that Hillary was the primary recipient of non-Russian foreign donations and political intervention based on sheer dollar amounts. And not only the 2 major parties - the Russian disinformatsiya campaign supported Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders as a way to weaken the turnout for Hillary, but not many people claim that Putin seriously thought either had a chance to beat Hillary, any more than they thought Trump had.
I’d agree with the former head of the CIA’s Moscow station, who, writing in the New York Times, said that the Russian strategy has always been to sow political dissension in its chief strategic opponent. Realistically the Russian government would have agreed with the vast majority of U.S. pollsters that Hillary was going to win the election, but would have benefitted from releasing propaganda - white, black, or gray - that would have given the failed candidate Trump, as well as Sanders and Stein, ammunition to attack the legitimacy of the election. A weakened American political system, and especially one in which both parties are in a political impasse or “Resistance”, could only benefit Russian objectives.
It’s just ironic that the Left in America are happily assisting them in this objective.
Ahh. So OP was essentially writing alt history fanfic?
If you require further assistance to understand the OP, I am happy to answer specific questions. But I think it speaks for itself.
As for your off-topic screed on the Clinton Foundation, I find it to be an interesting insight on conservative opinion. Trump business ventures with foreign funding have nothing to do with anything, but anyone involved with a charity is probably corrupt.