The only action, in any court or legislative body, to seek nullification of the 2016 election is before the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”). Bailey, et al v U.S., docket number 16-1464, is set for conference next Monday, September 25.
Disclosure: I am counsel of record for the Petitioners in Bailey, 16-1464.
The case seeks to remedies, or actions, from SCOTUS.
Long-term remedy is nullification of the election due to Russian interference (acknowledged by Trump, Pence, and Ryan to have occurred).
Short-term: appointment of a Special Master to conduct an independent investigation of Russian interference with the election.
There are two questions I ask today.
1) Why is nullification the only appropriate long-term remedy?
Russia hacked some 39 State systems prior to the 2016 elections and weaponized the internet to control how people accessed and obtained information. Our entire election system was compromised. In August, Kenya’s Supreme Court declared its election void because its system was compromised so significantly, The same should hold true here.
Impeachment hardly is a feasible solution. If Trump is impeached and convicted, Mike Pence, as Vice President, would become President. However, Pence benefitted as much from Russia’s actions as did Trump. If a gang robs a bank, all the members of the robbery gang are prosecuted. The gang leader is not singled out for prosecution and the rest of the gang allowed to keep the loot.
Likewise, the Twenty-fifth Amendment’s provision for removal of the President from office for inability to perform his duties is insufficient—Pence becomes President.
Suit has been brought for Trump’s violation of the emoluments clause. As far as I know, the case does not seek to declare the 2016 election a fraud.
2) Why has the Bailey case received no attention from the mainstream media?
An action before SCOTUS, in which Petitioners from 10 States allege treason and fraud were perpetrated in a campaign for President, should garner some attention from mainstream media, a lot of people believe.
Our reason could be that the case is without merit. I took flack from people, amongst whom were people who blogged under aliases and claimed to be lawyers, who said only two methods exist by which a sitting President may be removed from office: impeachment and the Twenty-fifth Amendment.
I am glad to debate anyone—who really is a lawyer or possesses other adequate qualifications and will identify herself or himself—about the merits of the arguments advanced and the remedies sought in Bailey.
One such person is a lawyer. My telephone call to his office went unreturned.
JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SHOULD READ THE PETITION. THE CASE SHOULD BE HEARD, AT THE VERY LEAST ON THE QUESTION OF APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.
If, at the very least, you agree an independent investigation should be held, ask three people to read the blogs here, and, if they agree, to ask three more.
Visit the website for Revote2017 dot net to read the Petition and what you can do.
This effort is not “partisan” for either party. The effort is to take control of the Oval Office back from a hostile foreign power—Russia.