What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

[bripat9643]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

I think the const is just fine. If it comes to light that Trump broke the law in conspiring with Putin/Assange to illegally hack dem emails, he should be impeached and convicted. If he accepted help from Russia in creating their ad strategy in exchange for an express promise about something ... Benedict Arnold there too.

If he just accepted help ..... well I'd never vote for him under any circumstance, but I'd hope he lose in 20.

The real problem is the Founders based their hopes on an "informed" electorate. We were not informed about Russia and Trump because Comey and the FBI were misused by the Obama admin after Bill met with Lynch on the Tarmac. Lynch should have been dismissed, a new AG appointed, who would have had to choose whether to prosecuted Hillary for disclosing secret emails.

Yeah, it's all Obama and Hillary's fault.

Not all of it.

Just most of it.

Asswipe.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

I'd like to see them try.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Your sources should be attacked and thoroughly scrutinized. Apparently you just copy and paste without reading the whole link. You're sooooo gullible. You poor thang!

You want reliable, non-partisan fake news sources only

I want to see tangible evidence, not spurios hearsay.

Makes zero difference to you. If it serves the leftist cause, you don't care if it's made up. If it doesn't, no amount of evidence would convince you

Well, arrests and convictions would do wonders for me. Without those, i see no good reason to accept anything less.

That makes no sense

You expected something that did ?

 

[bripat9643]

You want reliable, non-partisan fake news sources only

I want to see tangible evidence, not spurios hearsay.

Makes zero difference to you. If it serves the leftist cause, you don't care if it's made up. If it doesn't, no amount of evidence would convince you

Well, arrests and convictions would do wonders for me. Without those, i see no good reason to accept anything less.

That makes no sense

Ok dummy. I'll dumb it down for ya. Arrests and convictions of fraudulent voters is the only way to prove that voter fraud is as widespread as you puss moles say it is.
Dead people can't vote but many are still registered to vote as Republicans or as Democrats. Why didn't the article mention that? Yet, you would have us believe that someone is voting for the dead. I don't see how you can prove that. You must also consider that some deceased voters share names with living voters. Consider too that some people vote and die shortly thereafter..
And many voterals are registered to vote in 2 or more states because they moved several times and forgot to notify the authorities of the address change. But that doesn't mean they voted in every state in any particular election year. That notion is ludicrous.

Horseshit.

 

[Lakhota]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

 

[bripat9643]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

Let me get this straight: you think it was treason for Sessions to shake Kislyak's hand?

 

[kaz]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

There is no such thing as the popular vote. It's an artificial and meaningless stat calculated by the fake news to create a false narrative. It's like coming back after the Super Bowl and saying the Patriots actually won because they got more first downs.

Everyone knows on election day that isn't how we count votes, so it affects voting. Just like if they were playing for first downs, there would never be a long touchdown run and it would change the game. You can't change the scoring system later, sorry my dear girl.

If Trump were impeached, the POTUS would be Pence. If Trump and Pence were both impeached, it would be Paul Ryan. That is what the Constitution says, Pocahontas

 

[Lakhota]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

Let me get this straight: you think it was treason for Sessions to shake Kislyak's hand?

That's not all Sessions did. Plus, he lied about it.

 

[Votto]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

I got news for ya.

Every election is a fraud.

They lie with impunity so what in the hell does a vote even matter?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

 

[bripat9643]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

Let me get this straight: you think it was treason for Sessions to shake Kislyak's hand?

That's not all Sessions did. Plus, he lied about it.

What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?

Furthermore, he didn't lie about it. Any rational person would reasonably conclude that "contact" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

 

[PredFan]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

Buck up, soy boy.

 

[Lakhota]

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

Let me get this straight: you think it was treason for Sessions to shake Kislyak's hand?

That's not all Sessions did. Plus, he lied about it.

What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?

Furthermore, he didn't lie about it. Anyone would reasonably conclude that "contacts" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

Collusion with Russians and lying about it under oath to Congress. Probably also other stuff that Mueller knows about.

 

[hunarcy]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

Wow, that is sad. Surely you know that the Congress certifies the results of the Electoral College. The article you quoted is based on incorrect information

 

[bripat9643]

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

Let me get this straight: you think it was treason for Sessions to shake Kislyak's hand?

That's not all Sessions did. Plus, he lied about it.

What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?

Furthermore, he didn't lie about it. Anyone would reasonably conclude that "contacts" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

Collusion with Russians and lying about it under oath to Congress. Probably also other stuff that Mueller knows about.

There isn't any evidence of any "collusion" with Russians. Even if there was, it's not even a crime, let alone treason. He also didn't lie about anything before Congress. Even if he did, that still isn't treason.

You're just a silly hysterical snowflake who believes something is true because you want it to be true.

 

[Lakhota]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

Wow, that is sad. Surely you know that the Congress certifies the results of the Electoral College. The article you quoted is based on incorrect information

Republican Congress certified the EC results based on a fraudulent election.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

She won the popular vote by 3 million.

That and $5 will get you a yummy drink at Starbucks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

There is ZERO evidence any such thing happened, you have had over a year to provide us any evidence and you have failed miserably.

 

[Lakhota]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

There is ZERO evidence any such thing happened, you have had over a year to provide us any evidence and you have failed miserably.

Mueller will provide the evidence when he is finished.