Under 1976 Federal case, half the case for voiding the 2016 elections already has been met. At the very least, we need an independent investigation of the election.
   Former Secretary of State Clinton was wrong when she said no mechanism in the Constitution exists to remove a President in office through collusion with a foreign power. 
   In 1976, a U.S. District Court held such action is within the equitable jurisdiction of the court.  Donohue v Bd of Electors, 435 F.Supp 957 (E.D. 1976).
   That court set forth a two-part test to determine if an election should be declared void. The first part already has been determined in favor Petitioners in Bailey, et al v U.S., et al, docket 16-1464, set for U.S. Supreme Court conference this Monday. Petitioners seek an Order that declares void the results of the 2016 elections.
   First, illegal interference must be established.  Second, it must be shown that such interference affected the outcome of the election.
   As to the first part, yesterday, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  stated Russian hackers targeted voting systems in twenty-one (21) states. Earlier,  assessments by seventeen (17) U.S. intelligence agencies determined Russian President Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at the 2016 Presidential election.  This was adopted by Congress in the Adversaries Against the United States Act, where the assessment is quoted: “‘Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign ... to influence future efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their election processes.’” Sec. 211.
   Also, admissions have been made by Speaker Ryan (“no question”), Donald Trump, and Mike Pence that Russia interfered in our 2016 elections.
   Ryan, Trump, and Pence are named as Respondents in Bailey. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence the admissions of a party have evidentiary value.
   The second part of the test in Donohue—that the interference must be shown to have affected the outcome of the election—was denied by DHS.  DHS is part of the Executive branch, as is the office of Special Counsel.
   Petitioners in Bailey also seek appointment of a Special Master, to conduct an independent investigation of the 2016 elections.  Special Counsel Mueller can be fired at the direction of Trump at any time. James Madison wrote, in Federalist No. 43, that the judicial branch is best-suited to determine disputes.
   Respondents themselves, DHS, and Congress have established interference occurred.
  “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, 313 U.S. 299, 315, 61 S.Ct. 1031 (1941).” Donohue, 435 F.Supp. at 963.
   At the very least the Court should appoint a Special Master to investigate whether Russian interference had an effect on the outcome of the election.

   Disclosure: I am counsel of Record for Petitioners in Bailey.
   If you agree, please share this blog with three friends, and ask them to share with three others.  Also, visit Revote2017 dot net to see what you can do.
   Time is short. The Court needs to issue an Order to allow Bailey out of conference so the case can proceed.