Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you insinuating that President Trump elected fraudulently? How so? Just because YOU didn't vote for him, and your left-wing pals, doesn't mean he was elected fraudulently. And don't try to bring up the "Russian collusion" meme, because there has been no evidence found to date of any collusion on the part of Donald Trump, or his campaign with any Russian operatives for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the election.
But we do know that Hillary Clinton hired Christopher Steele, who, working with Russians (Fusion GPS, whom Bruce Ohr's wife just happened to be working for), created a phony "dossier." And Bruce Ohr continued to have contact, and receive information from Steele, even after the election. Steele was working with Comey's FBI to see to it that Trump was never elected, and has said he was "passionate that Trump not become President." (His own words)
So, it seems like all the "collusion" was on the part of the Democrats and Comey's FBI. They were all working to make sure Trump was never elected.
Good god. Another Trump supporter who can't discuss a hypothetical scenario.
On the other hand, the constitution doesn't specify what shall be done in the case that it's determined that a president was elected on the basis of fraud. So given the hypothetical case that fraud was involved, then it stands to reason the perpetrator of said fraud is not a legitimate president. Allowing him to serve out his term would be like allowing a surgeon who turns out to be a phony to continue operating on patients. It obviously should not be allowed. In fact, you can't name a single other profession where a known fraud is allowed to continue to function in a critical field.
Futhermore, any laws he created during his term and any judges he elected would also have been based on this fraud and would need to be revoked.
Common, guys. It's common sense. You may argue there's no reason to annul Trump, but you can't disagree with the logic that a presidency should be annulled if it turns out the election was rigged.
Or are you guys afraid of something?
On that basis we'd have to "annul" the John Quincy Adams victory in 1824 and the Rutherford Hayes victory in 1876. Just because the election was arguably questionable does not mean he's not the elected President, notwithstanding the continuous pot-stirring since Election Day, and prepped for in the weeks before.
On that basis we'd have to "annul" the John Quincy Adams victory in 1824 and the Rutherford Hayes victory in 1876. Just because the election was arguably questionable does not mean he's not the elected President, notwithstanding the continuous pot-stirring since Election Day, and prepped for in the weeks before.
We're not talking about "arguably questionable". We're talking about what would happen if a president was found guilty by his own law-enforcement of breaking laws to get elected. Is that really so hard for you guys to understand?
We're not talking about "arguably questionable". We're talking about what would happen if a president was found guilty by his own law-enforcement of breaking laws to get elected. Is that really so hard for you guys to understand?
Yes. Those are crimes punishable by impeachment and removal. Maybe his salary would be forfeited. But the concept of undoing everything from January 20, 2017 at noon on is novel, invented, and nowhere to be found in the Constitution or the laws. Even rescission for fraud in civil actions is dependent on the ability of a court to fashion equitable relief.
I will say this: Donald J. Trump was lawfully elected.
Indeed, I argued back in 2000 that Mr. Bush was fairly elected, after the Secretary of State for Florida had certified the votes. I was against Mr. Bush.
Yes. Those are crimes punishable by impeachment and removal. Maybe his salary would be forfeited. But the concept of undoing everything from January 20, 2017 at noon on is novel, invented, and nowhere to be found in the Constitution or the laws. Even rescission for fraud in civil actions is dependent on the ability of a court to fashion equitable relief.
You can't speak to the penalty for the crime of rigging an election in your favor because as you say, that's "nowhere to be found in the Constitution or the laws." Sorry, you can't have it both ways. This would be a constitutional crises and would be decided by congress.
I will say this: Donald J. Trump was lawfully elected.
Would you still say this if it came to light that he rigged the election? It's a hypothetical. Let's not run down the rabbit hole of whether he actually did or not. Mueller will sort that out.
Would you still say this if it came to light that he rigged the election? It's a hypothetical. Let's not run down the rabbit hole of whether he actually did or not. Mueller will sort that out.
rigged? LMAO! how do you "rig" an election of 50 states that their voting system is not centralized?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
