[image: https://i.reddituploads.com/523f61a4879b4c3badc9b844b3991858?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=712cb3f1d630b3aa1be061708c770f54]
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 6:25:50 PM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > > 12/10/2016 > > *Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton > *Alex Mohajer Political Writer and Commentator > > > > *A 1995 federal court ruling out of Pennsylvania may offer some clues to > Clinton supporters as to possible legal authority for removing an elected > official from office and replacing them with their erstwhile opponent. *In > light of late-breaking reports Friday evening that Russians interfered with > the 2016 presidential election to assist Donald Trump’s victory, Clinton > supporters are furiously in pursuit of remedies. > > At 10:45 p.m. Friday evening, the Washington Post broke an explosive story > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/cia-assessment-russia-tried-to-help-trump-win-2016-election/2016/12/09/2d41cbb0-be7d-11e6-ae79-bec72d34f8c9_video.html> > > alleging that Russians had interfered with the 2016 presidential election > in order to assist Donald Trump in a victory over democratic candidate > Hillary Clinton. The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this > conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional > leaders last week. > > The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans > confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies. No clear constitutional > remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome. Article II of the > U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the power to determine the date by > which the Electoral College will cast their votes, presently set for > December 19. In recent weeks, a massive online movement > <https://www.bros4hillary.com/usa> asking members of the Electoral > College to become “faithless” or “conscientious” electors and to vote for > Clinton instead of Trump has garnered national attention. > > The electors would be well within their constitutional authority to do so, > say groups like Hamilton’s Electors <https://www.hamiltonelectors.com/>, > which claims that the purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent > demagogues like Mr. Trump from assuming the nation’s highest office. A > petition urging the Electoral College to make Hillary Clinton president has > gained > nearly 5 million signatures. > <https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19-4a78160a-023c-4ff0-9069-53cee2a095a8> > > Proponents of this strategy are concerned, with good reason, about the > likelihood it will succeed. With Donald Trump having won 306 Electoral > College votes, 37 Republican electors would need to switch their votes to > Clinton, a tall order, and in the event that no one candidate has 270 > electoral votes, the decision would go to the Republican-controlled House > of Representatives. > > Some social media users > <https://twitter.com/SouthSeaGold/status/807507044055982080> have begun > circulating the phone numbers of various state attorneys general, urging > fellow citizens to contact them and request that the Electoral College > voters be enjoined from casting their vote until such time that all formal > investigations of Russian hacking conclude. Once the electors cast their > votes on December 19, they fear, any constitutional means for preventing > Trump’s road to the White House will be exhausted. > > However, at least one court decision suggests there is some federal > authority to invalidate the election outcome after the fact. > > In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the ruling of a federal district > judge in Pennsylvania that invalidated a state senate election due to > fraud, ordering the winner be removed from office and the subsequent > vacancy be filled by his opponent. ( Marks v. Stinson > <http://www.leagle.com/decision/199489219F3d873_1759/MARKS%20v.%20STINSON>, > 1994) > > The Pennsylvania state senate held a special election in November 1993 to > fill a seat that had been left vacant by the death of the previous > democratic senator, and pitted Republican Bruce Marks against Democrat > William G. Stinson for the spot. Stinson was named the winner, but massive > fraud was later uncovered that resulted in litigation. > > Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said > under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to > enforce laws, and hurried to certify Stinson the winner in order to bury > the story. The narrative recalls the Washington Post’s revelation that > Republican Mitch McConnell was aware of the CIA’s conclusion that Russians > had intervened and opted to do nothing. > > In February 1994, after Stinson had already taken office, a federal judge > ordered he “be removed from his State Senate office and that [his > opponent, Bruce Marks] be certified the winner within 72 hours.” > <http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html> > > Stinson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third > Circuit, but ultimately, this was the first known case in which a federal > judge reversed an election outcome. In January 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court > allowed the ruling to stand. > > The high court’s decision to not interfere with the lower court’s ruling > indicates at least some federal legal precedent that high courts may rule > the outcome of an election invalid due to fraud or interference. Which is > to say, that if after Donald Trump assumes office it is shown that Russian > hacking (or any fraud, for that matter) robbed Hillary Clinton of the > presidency, there is some legal authority on point that implies courts > could seat Clinton instead. > > Obviously both the stakes and the office in question are much higher than > in the 1994 case. There has been no case of first impression with regards > to the presidency being overturned to the wrongful winner’s opponent. > > There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or > system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analagous. But > the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster. > > It is not clear how the 1994 federal case would impact a presidential > election. Furthermore, that case involved the judge throwing out all > absentee ballots and requiring the vote be decided only by those ballots > cast at the machine, which would be problematic in the case at present. > > As of December 9, Clinton has won the national popular vote by more than > 2.8 million votes. According to Cook Political Report, the vote count has > Clinton approaching 66 million votes, meaning the first female major-party > nominee has already earned more votes than any other presidential candidate > in history, second only to Barack Obama (the totals suggest she is on > course to surpass the president’s 2012 count, as well). > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-interference-could-give-courts-legal-authority_us_584be136e4b0151082221b9c > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
