Posted on Nov 29, 2016

Suppose someone OTHER than Donald Trump is sworn in on 1-20-17. What will be the fallout?

6.62K

If electors opt to NOT vote for The Donald--and there is a concerted effort to get them to do just that--or he simply decides he'd rather go back to being a tycoon rather than being POTUS, whatever, it is not Donald Trump who will be sworn in on Inauguration Day, aside from many (but not all) on the right being angry and near universally the left happy to the point of orgasm, what happens then?

Posted in these groups:

Election 2016 61c89c28

Donald Trump Imgres

Hillary Clinton

Posted 8 y ago

Follow this discussion

Responses: 21

CPT Jack Durish

Posted 8 y ago

Absolutely, it would raise a Constitutional crisis. Probably, it would lead to civil unrest. Possibly, it would result in civil war. In all of these cases, the military would have to step cautiously, especially if the Command-in-Chief attempts to use it to intervene on behalf of the usurper.

(5)

Comment

(0)

show previous comments

CPT Jack Durish

8 y

SFC Justin Rooks - However, George Washington was bound by the same laws as Donald Trump, and it no more requires Trump to divest himself of his business holdings than it required that of Washington. The point is that Trump must not allow his business holdings to interfere with his duties as President and must not use his position as President to enrich himself (as Hillary used her position as Scty of State to peddle influence around the world)

(0)

Maj Marty Hogan

8 y

Cpl Craig Marton - and now you are talking reason and fact. Very good answer and thanks for beating me to it- you must not be swayed by Facebook or Vox.com?

(1)

(0)

Maj Marty Hogan

8 y

CPT Jack Durish - And the good CPT Jack Durish to the rescue- great answer sir...

(0)

SFC Justin Rooks

8 y

CPT Jack Durish influence is peddled by both sides on a regular basis, on both sides of the aisle. That's part of the diplomatic process. Not really trying to get into the weeds on that issue. The question was posed as to theoretically what could happen. I merely said that it is already possibly being discussed and the reason for it. As far as I know, there is no law on the books saying he is retired to divest himself, just saying that with the magnitude of his holdings, the possibility of a conflict of interest, of enriching his businesses through his position becomes that much greater. It is already occurring.

(0)