Intel just released from the CIA;
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:55 PM, 'Perplexed' via PoliticalForum < [email protected]> wrote: > > [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-cou >> ld-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. > -- -- 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.
