In an earlier Diary, I wrote how I thought Hillary could be declared our 45th president should Trump be found guilty of colluding with Russia in interfering in our elections to influence the electorate. According to the intelligence community, Putin had a vendetta against Hillary Clinton for some perceived slight or action she was alleged to have taken against him while Secretary of State. We now are being told that the intelligence community has corroborated some information in the British "Dossier” that was released by Buzzfeed recently. The Dossier outlined that Trump and his campaign were colluding with the Russians in making sure that Hillary lost the election to help Trump win. The Dossier noted that the hackers working for the Russians and whose emails were provided to Wikileaks, were paid by monies provided through the Trump campaign. It also stated that Trump may have been compromised by the Russians during one of his visits when he met with some Russian hookers to live out a fantasy of his related to the hate he held for the Obamas. The intel community is not saying what information has been corroborated, other than noting that it was not the most salacious parts.
We also learned that Trump’s National Security Advisor, Flynn, is now under suspicion for undermining President Obama’s sanctions that were imposed against Russia specifically because of their intervention in our election. Flynn was not NSA yet, so he may have violated the Logan Act and some Democrats have called for his dismissal from his position, or that his security clearance be withdrawn, which would essentially serve the same purpose. He is still in office as I write. Of course Republicans want everyone to believe that Flynn lied to Trump and Pence including Sean Spicer. Seeing Pence defend Flynn, you could see the difficulty he was having doing so. He was lying for Flynn and he knew it. Whether Flynn lied to him or not, Pence knew Flynn was lying.
As to Trump, Trump knew about the conversation before it took place, when it took place and probably discussed it after it took place. There is no way in hell that Flynn made assurances to Russia that Trump would take care of the sanctions without Trump’s knowledge and approval. Flynn supposedly also alluded to their colluding during the campaign. Was assuring the Russians that Trump would get rid of the sanctions partial payment or a gift for the their help in the campaign? Who knows who knew what and when they knew? All I know is that Trump and his minions are all corrupt.
Because of my conviction, for the longest time, that Trump was involved with the Russian hacking and interference in our elections, I have been hoping that the intelligence community was doing their jobs and checking this guy out. It appears that my hopes are becoming real because as each day passes, we are learning a little bit more about the Russian-Trump connection.
I am convinced that it is just a matter of time before this whole scandal blows wide open. This scandal will be unlike any other in our history and will even top Nixon’s Watergate, Reagan’s Iran-Contra and yes, even all the Clinton scandals, fake or real.
For the first time in our history, we will have a President accused of being a traitor to our country while running for office. Conduct that was so egregious that even the intelligence community is forced to withhold vital information from the President for their fear of a Russian mole in the West Wing. Trump”s own actions screamed something was wrong. There have been red flags for a long time. His high praise of Putin and refusal to say anything bad against him or against Russia while disparaging our own intelligence community is enough proof that Trump has either made a deal with Russia, owes Russia, or is being blackmailed.
Again, if and when Trump is proven to be a traitor and a cheat during the elections, it is my premise that the Court can declare Hillary the legitimate President of our country. It was when I started getting some blowback on how the Constitution didn’t allow for it and legal scholars scoffed at the notion, that I decided to look deeper into the law. Although I have no experience in this area of the law, I thought there should be some way that would allow this remedy other than to just allow the Republican party to remain in power by ascension. This Republican party with majority leader McConnell, who knew early in the summer that Trump may have been colluding with Russia and did nothing to check if the information had any validity. He even stopped President Obama from informing the public in a bipartisan manner about the allegation that Russia was interfering in our election to help Trump threatening that if the President did so, he would allege that it was just a partisan ploy.
Republicans were aware that Trump was probably colluding with Trump and sat on it. They allowed the RNC to certify his nomination despite this knowledge. The election was conducted and even when Third Party Candidates challenged the votes in some of the blue wall States, they were met with challenges by the RNC on behalf of Trump. Even after Trump himself was claiming the election was rigged. Trump’s entire behavior toward Russia and Putin should have put McConnell and Ryan on notice that something was terribly wrong, but still they did nothing.
Just as Trump doesn’t deserve to be President, neither does the Republican Party deserve to remain in control of the White House. They should not be allowed to profit or benefit from the treasonous acts of their own nominee, whom they chose and failed to vet, despite all the signs and warnings they had been given or were in possession of. If anything, they did everything to make sure that Trump won, including staying silent through most of Trump’s most egregious revelations or performances as their nominee. Their silence served as non-verbal acceptance of Trump and that they were willing to stand behind him no matter his egregious acts.
It was only after the election were we finally told all about what everybody knew and when they knew it. However, according to some reports I have read, they probably knew even before Obama came to them with the Dossier. The Dossier had been making the rounds of some political leaders as well the intel community since early last year.
So, this brings me to my legal argument as to why I think there is no barrier for the Court to find Hillary Clinton our legitimate President. In my previous Diary, I had brought up the case of a Senator who had been removed from office after four months when he was found guilty of voter fraud and the Court declared his opponent the winner. A commenter replied that no legal scholar would abide by my argument because Stinson did not apply pointing me to a Politifact article.
Having read the Politifact article, I am still not dissuaded that an expert lawyer is unable to make a valid arguments based on Constitutional law or any other applicable law. In Stinson, Marks was declared the winner but he was not allowed to retain his seat because the Circuit Court said that unless Marks could show that he would have won but for the fraud, he is not entitled to the Senate seat and said a new election should be ordered. www.leagle.com/...
However, what distinguishes Marks v. Stinson from this Presidential case is that no alleged voter fraud is being made. Trump received more votes than Hillary in Wisconsin, Michigan, Massachusetts or North Carolina, all “blue wall” States, and therefore won the electoral college votes. There is no evidence of actual “voter” or “ballot” “fraud” on Trump and Russia’s part. It is more insidious than simple mundane known acts of voter fraud. What Trump is alleged to have done goes beyond that. He conspired and colluded with a foreign adversarial country, Russia, to influence our Presidential elections.
It has been reported that Putin himself was directing the intervention into our election. Trump and his campaign had Putin’s entire Russian resources behind him. They illegally hacked into Hillary’s campaign emails, the Democratic National Committee’s emails, and even her campaign mgr., John Podesta’s emails, looking for any dirt they could put into the public domain to damage her in the public eye. Trump, to no one’s surprise, took all this information and spewed it out day after day, embellishing the stories as time went on, telling one lie after another, at his rallies, press conferences, network appearances, and kept repeating them every chance he got. He tweeted about them when he wasn’t speaking. When he wasn’t tweeting or speaking against Hillary, his minions were doing it for him at every network, social media, mass media 24/7
They also hacked the RNC emails. But none of those emails were ever released. Those are still being held against Trump just in case.
But the hacked emails weren’t enough, we also find out that Russia was very involved in disseminating “fake news” about Hillary to damage her reputation and character with the American public. This fake news was then gleefully being turned over by Trump and his minions on his campaign or others who were supportive of him.
We also heard reports that even some of the leaked Wikileaks information might have been faked. The veracity of these leaked emails were very much in question but the public didn’t care, they were already convinced of their truth. The constant drumming of Hillary’s bad character and how untrustworthy she was and yada, yada, yada had done its damage. The propaganda machine had worked all too well. Trump relished in it. He was so drunk in his own power of persuasion that he publicly called out for Russia to continue hacking Hillary to see if they could find her alleged missing 30,000 emails. Emails, that had been deleted years earlier and already been found to be irretrievable from a server that had no evidence of having been compromised or hacked. Trump just relished raising the email issue every time, that he didn’t think asking Russia to illegally hack Hillary’s emails constituted a crime. Why he was not charged with one, I will never understand. Other than he later claimed he was joking. Yeah, right... (wink, wink).
The purpose of these bad acts was to make sure that Hillary Clinton lost the election. They succeeded. Hillary and voters problem is proving that it was the cause of her loss.
So, when the Court says that based on prior law, a party must prove that she would have won the election but for the “fraud” perpetrated by the winner, I would argue that in this case, because no actual normal voter ballot fraud is alleged to have occurred, there is no possible way to determine the winner by recounting the votes. Therefore, the Courts must determine whether the usual standards should apply when seeking relief in an election that has been compromised by special circumstances such as in this case.
If the bad acts perpetrated by Trump with the help of Putin and Russia, were so egregious, so vile, constituting a criminal act that would be considered traitorous in fact or deemed traitorous in law, as to strike at the heart of everything this country stands for, that the Court finds that in order to preserve and protect free and fair elections, that removal alone is not a sufficient remedy, then the Court must set a new standard for relief. The general element required under Donohue, infra, apply under ordinary circumstances, however, extraordinary measures are required when we are faced with extraordinary circumstances. There can be no greater danger than the untold dark influence of a foreign country bent on destroying our faith in our Presidential elections. To purposely take overt and covert action against one candidate to influence our elections, cannot be countenanced.
Remedy requires that the innocent, but significantly aggrieved candidate, be declared the winner. In this instance, Hillary Clinton cannot prove she would have won the electoral vote, but having won the popular vote, she should be declared the legitimate winner and our next President of the U.S. of A.
In the Stinson case the Court noted the following: “Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1377-78, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1963). These voting rights are potentially violated, however, whenever an individual is sworn in as an elected representative without a demonstration that he or she was the choice of a plurality of the electorate. This is so because the possibility is left open that some other candidate actually received more votes than the declared winner, which would mean that each of the votes cast for this other candidate was ignored.” www.leagle.com/…
Some might argue that the Court could order a new election be taken. My view on this is that this would be my last choice because of the heavy burden it would place on Hillary Clinton having to run all over again and bear the costs of a new election, having already given and spent so much of her time and donor’s money in running what I considered a pretty great election, given all the obstacles she faced. That, and the weariness of the public of having to go through another election so soon after the last one, which was the most brutal we have been through in recent memory, if ever. Plus the fact that the Republicans, who do not have clean hands themselves, would be given a second bite at the apple. A lawyer could have a field day pointing to all the omissions and commissions taken by the Republican Party and/or RNC. Some questionable actions to say the least, and possibly worse, that led to Trump as their nominee and eventual winner.
We won’t know the full extent of what they knew, who knew and what if anything, they did to protect the American people (nothing), until a full and independent investigation is completed. Which they will most likely try to prevent at all costs. This is why it is so important that Hillary be declared the winner and take her place at the Oval Office, where she belongs, so she can order such an investigation be undertaken. It may be the only way we can finally get rid of those at the top who have tried to cover up Trump’s bad acts.
In Donohue v Board of Elections (1976), a case from New York, the Court held that it had the power to order to new elections.
“*967 The burden which plaintiffs must meet is a heavy one. Moreover, even if a claim is stated under this standard, plaintiffs bear an even heavier burden in demonstrating the necessity for a new election. In the present case, ordering a new Presidential election in New York State could involve the most serious consequences, raising the question of "whether the relief, if given, might not do more harm than good."MacDougall v. Green, 335 U.S. 281, 286, 69 S. Ct. 1, 3, 93 L. Ed. 3 (1948) (Rutledge, J., concurring). President-elect Carter's victory in New York will provide him with the margin of victory in the Electoral College, which meets on December 13, 1976, to complete the nation's quadrennial task of choosing a President. If New York's electors are disqualified from casting their ballots, and a new election in New York is necessary, possibly no candidate would receive sufficient votes to be elected President.[17] The delay attendant in holding a new election in New York might disrupt the governing process and leave the nation without a legitimate leader for an unpredictable length of time.
“The point, however, is not that ordering a new Presidential election in New York State is beyond the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Protecting the integrity of elections particularly Presidential contests is essential to a free and democratic society. See United States v. Classic, supra. It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means. Indeed, entirely foreclosing injunctive relief in the federal courts would invite attempts to influence national elections by illegal means, particularly in those states where no statutory procedures are available for contesting general elections.
The fact that a national election might require judicial intervention, concomitantly implicating the interests of the entire nation, if anything, militates in favor of interpreting the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts to include challenges to Presidential elections.
But before a federal court can responsibly order a new election, the claimants seeking this extraordinary relief must come forward with the most clear and convincing evidence that state officials or persons acting under color of state law, by intentionally depriving qualified voters of the right to vote, altered the outcome of the election.[20] A party contesting a Presidential election carries a heavy burden. Not to put too fine a point on it, this standard implies conduct of a most egregious nature, approximating criminal activity.
Therefore, in judging whether the complaint before us states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiffs must allege, and be prepared to prove, the following:
(1) that specific acts of fraud or other unlawful behavior were committed in the conduct of the election;
(2) the fraud or other unlawful behavior was committed with the intent or purpose of depriving qualified voters of their constitutionally protected right to vote;
(3) the fraud or other unlawful behavior was committed by persons acting under the color of state law; and
(4) the fraud or other unlawful behavior changed the outcome of the election.” (Emphasis added) law.justia.com/…
As noted above, the standards would have to be changed for special circumstances such as this one. As to No. 4, that requires that the fraud or other unlawful behavior changed the outcome of the election, this would be nearly impossible to prove. Without actual voter ballot fraud or ballot machine tampering that could be quantified, there would be no way for Hillary to prove that she would have won the electoral college vote had the Russians not interfered. Although some attempts have been made to show how some uncommon events such as the Comey letters might have changed the outcome based on polling results. many have said that the Russian interference played little or no role in Hillary’s loss. The problem would be to establish which factors caused the difference in polling numbers to significantly change right before the election.
I am not saying that the Court would be disinclined to consider the effects on the voting public after prolonged concerted efforts of a foreign country intervening in our presidential election is shown, however, there would still be no way of determining with certainty that Hillary would have gotten more votes but for the intervention. Without evidence of her winning the election otherwise, she would be prevented from seeking relief under the current standard. As such, Trump, the RNC and any named Republican leaders in the action should be declared estopped from raising No. 4 as a required element against Hillary.
“Thus, where the words or conduct of one party causes another to forbear to his or her detriment, equitable estoppel may be applied to prevent harm to the innocent party. Miami Nat. Bank v. Greenfield, 488 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986).
In order to assert a defense of estoppel, it is generally necessary that the representations, whether consisting of words, acts, omissions, or conduct of the party against whom the estoppel is being asserted, were believed by the party claiming the estoppel. State ex rel. Watson v. Gray, 48 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1950). Moreover, the party asserting equitable estoppel must prove that he or she reasonably relied on the conduct of the other party.Miller v. American Banker’s Ins. Group, 85 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (applying Florida law).” www.jimersoncobb.com/…
One could argue that Hillary and/or voters relied on assertions, acts, omissions or conduct of the party (Trump and others). Hillary in how she conducted her campaign without all the material information against Trump she was kept in the dark about. Republicans didn’t disclose that Trump was possibly colluding with the Russians and prevented President Obama from publicizing that he was getting help from them. The voters were also kept in the dark about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia and voted based on false information and materially omitted information. RNC failed in not vetting Trump prior to certifying his nomination for the Party. They already had notice that he had many conflicts of interest and was still refusing to provide his tax returns. As the RNC, they could have required he produce his tax returns to remain as the GOP candidate, but they didn’t take this precaution. There appeared to be no vetting of Donald Trump by the RNC. Their omissions were egregious and warrant estoppel from asserting elements that would prevent Hillary and/or the voters from seeking relief.
I’ve already argued about how the Courts could declare Hillary the winner based on the special circumstances of this case. To only order a new election is woefully insufficient. To deter another attack in kind by another foreign nation and candidate, a message must be sent that if a foreign nation interferes in our national elections similarly, we will not tolerate such action. Other than placing sanctions and taking other actions, we will also replace their candidate with the injured candidate. Just my take on how one could possibly find a way, especially someone with a lot of expertise, thinking out of the box, to fix what has been broken.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Some people may call me crazy for believing that there could be a way the Court could declare Hillary our President. Everybody thought it was crazy that Trump would be elected President too.
I prefer to keep HOPE alive. The presidency is worth fighting for and keeping it away from Republican control warrants it.
NOTE: Breaking News: Flynn resigns as NSA. The Trump administration is starting to crumble.
