Google+ Followers

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Clinton's fate, a catalyst for change

Having had time to rest and reflect, if you were Hillary Clinton, would you ever consider accepting the opportunity to serve the nation as President? Given her propensity for politics and desire to break the glass ceiling, she just might.

In the court of public opinion, not being a lawyer, just a citizen who is supposed to know and understand the rules of law, I could not conceive of backtracking to the pre-swearing in of Donald Trump. History moves on and not backward.

Writing for the Huffington Post, Alex Mohajer suggests that "Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton." That was originally written in December and updated yesterday.

"PREVIOUSLY: The Washington Post dropped an explosive story last Friday night alleging that Russians in the highest echelons of the Kremlin did, in fact, interfere with the 2016 presidential election with the express goal of assisting Republican candidate Donald Trump in securing a victory over his rival, Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. The piece revealed, among other things, that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week. 
The full breadth and scope of Russian involvement are still unknown to the American electorate, although Secretary Clinton and President Obama attempted numerous times during the campaign season to convey reports of cyber attacks against the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. 
Clinton supporters are seeking out any possible legal remedies available to them in the unlikely event that the president-elect is proven to have engaged in fraudulent or conspiratorial conduct that supported foreign interventionism, or is proven to have had some outright effect on the outcome of the election. 
No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of a presidential election. 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. The GOP-controlled House has no incentive to aid Democrats in a Hail Mary move for the White House, even if their opinions of the president-elect are less than favorable." 
Huffington Post
(with edits)
The scenario discussed in the article is about getting members of the Electoral College to change their votes, requiring 37 to switch to Clinton. That seems unworthy to this analyst for a few reasons:

1. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg questions the future of the Electoral College. That topic is to be continued.

2. Impeaching Trump for being illegitimate based on Emolument violation would also delegitimize all of his appointments and actions, including his selection of Vice President.

3. The usual Constitutional protocols become disrupted by this circumstance, casting responsibility for clearing the way to forming a new government to a collaboration between the Congress and the Supreme Court.

4. Resulting from investigations and subsequent charges, some members of the Republican-controlled Congress either must recuse themselves or be impeached for covering up, obstructing justice, of failing in their duties.

This will be a moment in history when a strong political minority can be strengthened by a strong majority of citizens asserting their rights. Seeking a bipartisan and compromise solution between Republican and Democrats hold promise for improving democracy in America.



Taking it easy.


No comments:

Post a Comment