Should Trump's Presidential Powers be Suspended Until After Russa Probe?

faithful_servant said:

You left out one poll option: "I hate Trump and any reason to get him out of office, no matter how dishonest, is a good thing."

Click to expand...

haha...to be honest, I thought about putting that one in there, but I didn't figure there would be anyone that would select it. Of course, you are correct, there would be that element, if everyone were honest. But I think one can be concerned about this situation without falling into that category as well.

OlNate said:

haha...to be honest, I thought about putting that one in there, but I didn't figure there would be anyone that would select it. Of course, you are correct, there would be that element, if everyone were honest. But I think one can be concerned about this situation without falling into that category as well.

Click to expand...

If they were honest about it, there would be at least a dozen people at DP who would have selected it...

OlNate said:

But, I mean, there's clearly enough evidence to launch an investigation. I'm not talking about any kind of permanent removal, merely a limitation on his ability to drive new policy while the legitimacy of the election is in question.

I don't understand how this is a no brainer...lol...I honestly don't.

Click to expand...

Oh? What's that evidence?

phattonez said:

Oh? What's that evidence?

Click to expand...

OlNate said:

Like whatever the FBI decided was sufficient evidence to launch an investigation. I'd go into the details, but I've had this conversation too many times to be drowned in denial, accusations, excuses, and other lunacy. It's just easier to say I didn't launch it, the FBI did, and clearly they figure they've got enough to move ahead.

(apologies if that wasn't where you were going to go with that, just been down that road too many times on here, and I'm honestly not looking for shouting matches with this, but rather a discussion to explore the possibility that someone other than the American people picked your president, and what you folks think is the appropriate response to that)

Click to expand...

See above, already answered that.

OlNate said:

I dunno, this is a political discussion forum, nothing we discuss here will ever be implemented, so either it's all a waste of time, or none of it is. I like talking about this stuff - I knew I'd take it on the chin for this one, said so in the OP, but I hoped a few folks would want to have a discussion about it, so I'm glad you're playing along, despite the fact that none of this matters beyond our own enjoyment of the conversation.

I think the burden of proof on the effectiveness of a voting system should be placed on the government. Clearly you have a system that can be compromised, I've read articles (can find them if you want the source, or you can believe me for the purposes of this conversation, let me know) that talk about which of the machines can be hacked and which can't, and a significant number can. Doing so should drastically limit the instances of this occurring, but I think every time it does it should be taken seriously, and a limitation be applied if there is not a reasonable consensus. I'm not sure where to draw the line, only that a line needs to be defined after which you must surely question whether the will of the people is being enacted, or if it is the will of a different nation.

[...]

Click to expand...

(Sorry I had to edit your post for my response but the board was complaining that my post was too long. Seems there's a 5000 character limit and I was up around 5600)

Okay so I overdid it a bit with the waste of time comment. I'm enjoying the discussion as well.

Okay so you're talking about actual tampering with voting machines or vote counting and not just lies and disinformation, which every country is subject to and which there's really nothing that anyone can do about. I know there was an item in the paper a couple of days ago about Russian attempts to break into the systems of company that supplies voting software but that document is unverified, and even if it is true it doesn't indicate whether the alleged hackers were successful, let alone whether voting was actually tampered with. The investigations are centered on disinformation and not tampering.


What would happen if someone provably tampered with an election and changed the result? It would provoke a likely Constitutional crisis because there's no guidance in it that I know of for dealing with that situation and the three branches of government would likely never agree on what to do. I'd think the best course of action would be to leave the sworn in President in place and deal with it at the next election.

Imagine for a minute what would have happened if deep into his second term we actually did find out that President Obama wasn't a natural born citizen. How do possibly undo 5 or 6 or 7 years of governance? How do unwind all the legislation he signed? You simply cannot have a do over. In this case it's perhaps a little easier to deal with because Trump hasn't done anything yet - aside from make a lot of noise on twitter but still it'd be an unprecedented situation and again I think the best course of action is to leave things be and deal with it at the next election. I can't see where any other action results in a less chaotic outcome.

There are Constitutional issues with bringing a former president back. Obama served two terms and serving even part of a third is illegal under US law so that's a non starter even before you get to the political question. Certainly much of the day to day running of the country can be done with an absentee President but that only goes so far. The President has to sign spending bills so eventually you get to the point where money can't be disbursed to various agencies at which point the government stops working. And what do you do if Russia, for example, decides to invade an ally while our President is sidelined because of an investigation?

If actual, provable tampering is turned up prior to the President being sworn in I guess you can redo the election but there are going to all sorts of lawsuits that might take months to untangle and you may again run into a situation where a sitting President is in effect serving a third term which even in this case may well be illegal.

Short answer is it'd be a holy mess and I'd much rather we don't get faced with it.

Harshaw said:

There is NOTHING unprecedented about foreign countries attempting to influence our elections. There's absolutely nothing unprecedented about Russians trying to influence our elections.

But even if there were, there's no "unprecedented" provision for suspending the powers of the President in the Constitution. There's impeachment, or physical incapacitation. That's it.

Click to expand...

There is also nothing unprecedented about the US interfering in the elections of others either.

The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries - LA Times

This type of thread is what happens when you don't teach kids how our government works/you listen to CNN's delusional "impeachment is a day away" meme.

Should Trump's Presidential Powers be Suspended Until After Russia Probe?

Only if he can still tweet.

ajn678 said:

This type of thread is what happens when you don't teach kids how our government works/you listen to CNN's delusional "impeachment is a day away" meme.

Click to expand...

If you're paying any attention at all to your television you're delusional.

Fenton Lum said:

There is also nothing unprecedented about the US interfering in the elections of others either.

The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries - LA Times

Click to expand...

:shrug: And?

Gaius46 said:

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that allows for a sitting President's powers to be "suspended" so what you are suggesting would be illegal.

Click to expand...

That is spot on. Trump and Pence should simply resign and get it over with.

OlNate said:

See above, already answered that.

Click to expand...

So the fact that an investigation is launched is evidence that something happened, but an investigation was launched because of evidence. Do you see the circular reasoning? What's the evidence?

phattonez said:

Oh? What's that evidence?

Click to expand...

Gaius46 said:

(Sorry I had to edit your post for my response but the board was complaining that my post was too long. Seems there's a 5000 character limit and I was up around 5600)

Okay so I overdid it a bit with the waste of time comment. I'm enjoying the discussion as well.

Short answer is it'd be a holy mess and I'd much rather we don't get faced with it.

Click to expand...

LOL...apparently we're both long winded, I hit the same limit, so please forgive my editing as well.

Haha... Well, I wasn't serious about Obama, talk about putting gasoline (or perhaps chlorine trifluoride) on the fire...but, there is precedent... Franklin D. Roosevelt. But if the goal was to deescalate, putting Obama back in the WH would be the opposite of that, regardless of what anyone thinks of him (and especially because of what many think of him while at the same time supporting Trump).

When I reference Russian hacking, it's in response to the allegations connected to the latest leaked report. IF (I would make that if in 72 point font, if it didn't make the rest of the paragraph look funny, this is all allegation, nothing is confirmed, I understand that) that indeed was the case, and IF that were being seriously investigated (which, if it was leaked from the NSA, it must at least have been considered), then it calls into question the results of the entire election, and in fact puts the entire system at odds with itself. Were it to be proven, I think what you'd be choosing between is a costly reelection, which, if the results were demonstrably fair and free of outside influence, might actually placate both sides, or, alternately, a government that the entire citizenry knows doesn't deserve to be there, at which point you've got a four year lame duck president, because who would support their initiatives?

Of course, if that level of compromise were ever to be demonstrated, I cannot begin to guess at how long and how much it would take to regain the trust of the population in the entire process, and any result after that would be denounced by the "losing" side. I'm with you 100%, it would be a holy mess, and I hope for all you that it's proven untrue, despite the fact that I am definitely NOT a Trump fan, and would love to see him out of Washington and back in New York. I think that this goes beyond hating someone, and realizing that you guys are sitting on a tinderbox down there, and only someone completely lost in partisanship, or a total d-bag, would cheer on the kind of dissention that would arise if any of this is true.

As hypothetical as all of this is, I think you guys need to look at it as an opportunity to demand changes to your constitution that allow for an appropriate response to the new types of risk that technology brings with it. They've been talking for years about cyber terrorism, but mainly in the context of economic and infrastructure risk...certainly no one would have ever thought that a nerd with a computer could determine the outcome of an election (allegedly in context of this example, but potentially in general). Given the construct of your governing documents, I think you are at great risk. Frankly, despite it being low brow and low tech, I'm glad we still use paper ballots up here.

OlNate said:

LOL...apparently we're both long winded, I hit the same limit, so please forgive my editing as well.

Haha... Well, I wasn't serious about Obama, talk about putting gasoline (or perhaps chlorine trifluoride) on the fire...but, there is precedent... Franklin D. Roosevelt. But if the goal was to deescalate, putting Obama back in the WH would be the opposite of that, regardless of what anyone thinks of him (and especially because of what many think of him while at the same time supporting Trump).

When I reference Russian hacking, it's in response to the allegations connected to the latest leaked report. IF (I would make that if in 72 point font, if it didn't make the rest of the paragraph look funny, this is all allegation, nothing is confirmed, I understand that) that indeed was the case, and IF that were being seriously investigated (which, if it was leaked from the NSA, it must at least have been considered), then it calls into question the results of the entire election, and in fact puts the entire system at odds with itself. Were it to be proven, I think what you'd be choosing between is a costly reelection, which, if the results were demonstrably fair and free of outside influence, might actually placate both sides, or, alternately, a government that the entire citizenry knows doesn't deserve to be there, at which point you've got a four year lame duck president, because who would support their initiatives?

Of course, if that level of compromise were ever to be demonstrated, I cannot begin to guess at how long and how much it would take to regain the trust of the population in the entire process, and any result after that would be denounced by the "losing" side. I'm with you 100%, it would be a holy mess, and I hope for all you that it's proven untrue, despite the fact that I am definitely NOT a Trump fan, and would love to see him out of Washington and back in New York. I think that this goes beyond hating someone, and realizing that you guys are sitting on a tinderbox down there, and only someone completely lost in partisanship, or a total d-bag, would cheer on the kind of dissention that would arise if any of this is true.

As hypothetical as all of this is, I think you guys need to look at it as an opportunity to demand changes to your constitution that allow for an appropriate response to the new types of risk that technology brings with it. They've been talking for years about cyber terrorism, but mainly in the context of economic and infrastructure risk...certainly no one would have ever thought that a nerd with a computer could determine the outcome of an election (allegedly in context of this example, but potentially in general). Given the construct of your governing documents, I think you are at great risk. Frankly, despite it being low brow and low tech, I'm glad we still use paper ballots up here.

Click to expand...

So you've no evidence. Like I said.

OlNate said:

LOL...apparently we're both long winded, I hit the same limit, so please forgive my editing as well.

Haha... Well, I wasn't serious about Obama, talk about putting gasoline (or perhaps chlorine trifluoride) on the fire...but, there is precedent... Franklin D. Roosevelt. But if the goal was to deescalate, putting Obama back in the WH would be the opposite of that, regardless of what anyone thinks of him (and especially because of what many think of him while at the same time supporting Trump).

When I reference Russian hacking, it's in response to the allegations connected to the latest leaked report. IF (I would make that if in 72 point font, if it didn't make the rest of the paragraph look funny, this is all allegation, nothing is confirmed, I understand that) that indeed was the case, and IF that were being seriously investigated (which, if it was leaked from the NSA, it must at least have been considered), then it calls into question the results of the entire election, and in fact puts the entire system at odds with itself. Were it to be proven, I think what you'd be choosing between is a costly reelection, which, if the results were demonstrably fair and free of outside influence, might actually placate both sides, or, alternately, a government that the entire citizenry knows doesn't deserve to be there, at which point you've got a four year lame duck president, because who would support their initiatives?

Of course, if that level of compromise were ever to be demonstrated, I cannot begin to guess at how long and how much it would take to regain the trust of the population in the entire process, and any result after that would be denounced by the "losing" side. I'm with you 100%, it would be a holy mess, and I hope for all you that it's proven untrue, despite the fact that I am definitely NOT a Trump fan, and would love to see him out of Washington and back in New York. I think that this goes beyond hating someone, and realizing that you guys are sitting on a tinderbox down there, and only someone completely lost in partisanship, or a total d-bag, would cheer on the kind of dissention that would arise if any of this is true.

As hypothetical as all of this is, I think you guys need to look at it as an opportunity to demand changes to your constitution that allow for an appropriate response to the new types of risk that technology brings with it. They've been talking for years about cyber terrorism, but mainly in the context of economic and infrastructure risk...certainly no one would have ever thought that a nerd with a computer could determine the outcome of an election (allegedly in context of this example, but potentially in general). Given the construct of your governing documents, I think you are at great risk. Frankly, despite it being low brow and low tech, I'm glad we still use paper ballots up here.

Click to expand...

I'm a New York resident and all I can say is - "No no no! Please don't send him back to New York."

And interestingly my daughter is an Indiana resident, she's going to college there, and her only comment when he was elected Vice President was "Thank God he's out of my state."


Until the last election NY used mechanical voting machines. Now we use electronic machines that read cards where you have to fill in an oval next to the name of the person you voted for - similar to the answer sheets we used to use on standardized multiple choice tests when I was in high school. And lots of places still use paper ballots. There are ways to secure electronic communications and build enough safeguards into electronic systems to make them as secure, if not moreso, than paper ballots as well as more accurate but that's another discussion.

phattonez said:

So you've no evidence. Like I said.

Click to expand...

lol...I hate to interrupt, since you seem to be having fun having this conversation all on your own, but if you read through what the discussion it's about, you'll see I never said I personally did. Funny thing about proof and suspensions, though, you don't really need it to implement one. Take, for example, the case of the teacher who is alleged to harass their student. The immediate response is suspension, pending investigation. If the teacher is proven not guilty, they are reinstated. If they are proven guilty, they are fired, and prosecuted. It's not as if this notion is completely out of left field...

Anyway, the whole conversation is hypothetical...don't let yourself get too bent up over it.

OlNate said:

So, to the commenters so far...the fact that Russia is alleged to have changed the results of your election to give the win to someone potentially other than the person America would have picked without intervention doesn't bother you? Has partisanship actually gone that far in America?

The OP was not to suggest removing him, merely limiting his ability to change the face of the country until his presidency is validated... Seems prudent, in light of unprecedented (yes, unprecedented, unless you can cite a source that actually demonstrates foreign vote tampering, I couldn't find anything) allegations of election result manipulation by a foreign power. Nothing concerning about that? hehe

Click to expand...

First, the only thing that has been determined so far is that Russia hacked the DNC, gave it to Wikileaks who released the emails from Podesta. Trying to influence, yeah, but the truth hurts and if the DNC didn't do what they did, this whole thing would be moot. Second, they didn't "pick" our President. If people changed their minds based on those released emails, that's on the DNC, who put themselves there in the first place. If it was mis-information, then I would blame the whole thing entirely on the Russians, but it wasn't.

So please, someone, explain to me exactly what you think Russia did other than that, to change the results of the election? No one seems to be able to answer me. Because if that's all you got, it's a pretty lame excuse.
You all don't mind "leaks" that hurt Trump or anyone in his administration.

OlNate said:

Whew...ok, so, ya, I know I'm going to take it on the chin for this one, but here goes anyway...

Given the seriousness of the allegations around Russian influence in last year's American election, should Trump's powers be temporarily suspended until after the investigation?

Case for: Russian hacking or any other influencing of the election would mean that the results are not legitimate, and unless an exact accounting can be made of exactly what the impact of Russian influence would be, should it be proven that they indeed influence the election, the entire result would be in question. Therefore, the potential exists that Trump may be acting as President without having won the election.

Given the broad initiatives that have already been implemented, and the initiatives planned in the future, should someone who cannot be proven to be the legitimately elected President beyond a shadow of a doubt be able to make those changes and act on the behalf of the American people?

(Would love to here from folks with knowledge of the law on this one in the comments...though I'm pretty sure that IF the Russians influenced the election, it would be unprecedented - at least, as far as the public knows, anyway)

Click to expand...

What is with all this "WE" **** in your poll, your a Canadian.... you can go pound sand.

Caine said:

What is with all this "WE" **** in your poll, your a Canadian.... you can go pound sand.

Click to expand...

Maybe he's not a Canadian, but just lives in Canada now. No reason to be snarky.

OlNate said:

Whew...ok, so, ya, I know I'm going to take it on the chin for this one, but here goes anyway...

Given the seriousness of the allegations around Russian influence in last year's American election, should Trump's powers be temporarily suspended until after the investigation?

Case for: Russian hacking or any other influencing of the election would mean that the results are not legitimate, and unless an exact accounting can be made of exactly what the impact of Russian influence would be, should it be proven that they indeed influence the election, the entire result would be in question. Therefore, the potential exists that Trump may be acting as President without having won the election.

Given the broad initiatives that have already been implemented, and the initiatives planned in the future, should someone who cannot be proven to be the legitimately elected President beyond a shadow of a doubt be able to make those changes and act on the behalf of the American people?

(Would love to here from folks with knowledge of the law on this one in the comments...though I'm pretty sure that IF the Russians influenced the election, it would be unprecedented - at least, as far as the public knows, anyway)

Click to expand...

As other have observed, there's no legal mechanism to do what you've proposed.

Not only that, where is the prima facia evidence as a justification to do this? There is not evidence that I'm aware of that has shown that even with the Russian influence in the campaign (mostly social media and other media), which has shown that it changed the vote results. So what's your basis to do this?

Caine said:

What is with all this "WE" **** in your poll, your a Canadian.... you can go pound sand.

Click to expand...

holbritter said:

Maybe he's not a Canadian, but just lives in Canada now. No reason to be snarky.

Click to expand...

lol...hi guys.

Caine, thanks for sharing your concern, but I think you can put your mind to rest. The question was aimed at you guys, and I wrote the answers for you to answer. Notice further that the answer I picked was "Don't know, but I'm pretty concerned." Which I am concerned, both because in general I find this concerning for my friends south of the border, but also because we feel the ripples from pretty much everything you guys do, good or bad, sane or dysfunctional. We are far more tied to you than your invitation to "pound sand" would suggest.

Holbritter, thanks for the benefit of the doubt, but alas I am just a lowly Canuck.. But, we're pretty up on your political scene, per above.

eohrnberger said:

As other have observed, there's no legal mechanism to do what you've proposed.

Not only that, where is the prima facia evidence as a justification to do this? There is not evidence that I'm aware of that has shown that even with the Russian influence in the campaign (mostly social media and other media), which has shown that it changed the vote results. So what's your basis to do this?

Click to expand...

Answered this multiple times, please feel free to read the thread for your answer.

OlNate said:

Whew...ok, so, ya, I know I'm going to take it on the chin for this one, but here goes anyway...

Given the seriousness of the allegations around Russian influence in last year's American election, should Trump's powers be temporarily suspended until after the investigation?

Case for: Russian hacking or any other influencing of the election would mean that the results are not legitimate, and unless an exact accounting can be made of exactly what the impact of Russian influence would be, should it be proven that they indeed influence the election, the entire result would be in question. Therefore, the potential exists that Trump may be acting as President without having won the election.

Given the broad initiatives that have already been implemented, and the initiatives planned in the future, should someone who cannot be proven to be the legitimately elected President beyond a shadow of a doubt be able to make those changes and act on the behalf of the American people?

(Would love to here from folks with knowledge of the law on this one in the comments...though I'm pretty sure that IF the Russians influenced the election, it would be unprecedented - at least, as far as the public knows, anyway)

Click to expand...

Until there is evidence of actual influence, which I really doubt will ever materialize, no.

OlNate said:

Like whatever the FBI decided was sufficient evidence to launch an investigation. I'd go into the details, but I've had this conversation too many times to be drowned in denial, accusations, excuses, and other lunacy. It's just easier to say I didn't launch it, the FBI did, and clearly they figure they've got enough to move ahead.

(apologies if that wasn't where you were going to go with that, just been down that road too many times on here, and I'm honestly not looking for shouting matches with this, but rather a discussion to explore the possibility that someone other than the American people picked your president, and what you folks think is the appropriate response to that)

Click to expand...

The fake dossier tipped the scales after a failed fisa attempt. Being in the 2 percent of fisa failures does not lend credibility.

"Want to kick the football Charlie Brown? I'm serious this time".....Lucy Van Patton

OlNate said:

Whew...ok, so, ya, I know I'm going to take it on the chin for this one, but here goes anyway...

Given the seriousness of the allegations around Russian influence in last year's American election, should Trump's powers be temporarily suspended until after the investigation?

Case for: Russian hacking or any other influencing of the election would mean that the results are not legitimate, and unless an exact accounting can be made of exactly what the impact of Russian influence would be, should it be proven that they indeed influence the election, the entire result would be in question. Therefore, the potential exists that Trump may be acting as President without having won the election.

Given the broad initiatives that have already been implemented, and the initiatives planned in the future, should someone who cannot be proven to be the legitimately elected President beyond a shadow of a doubt be able to make those changes and act on the behalf of the American people?

(Would love to here from folks with knowledge of the law on this one in the comments...though I'm pretty sure that IF the Russians influenced the election, it would be unprecedented - at least, as far as the public knows, anyway)

Click to expand...

No, he's president until 2020 or until congress decides otherwise, whichever comes first.

I don't trust him to protect us. One of the shocking points in Comey's testimony was that President Trump has no interest in pursuing any plan to manage Russian interference. That's truly alarming for a president to have no interest in protecting his own nation.