On Monday, October 30, 2017, the first three of what will be many criminal grand-jury indictments were issued against Donald Trump's former campaign manager and campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his partner Robert Gates, as well as former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. It is clear now that high-level associates of Donald Trump and his presidential campaign engaged in criminal conspiracy with a foreign hostile power with the intent of influencing the 2016 American presidential election.

Since last December, I have written about the need to nullify the 2016 presidential election and argued the legal framework exists to challenge the outcome.

This comes on the heels of nearly daily evidence of Russian intervention in the election. The use of Wikileaks to drop stolen e-mails. 200,000 in Facebook advertisements purchased by shadowy Russian organizations aimed at election influence. The dropping of Fake News on the Facebook pages of voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 21 states reportedly had attempts by Russian actors to penetrate their systems. The sowing of racial discord using fake Facebook groups that pretended to be racial activists.

Donald Trump does not need to have actively participated in this conspiracy or any of the illegal acts above. I have been saying this in my journalism since December 2016: If Donald Trump knew of this criminal conduct, which occurred for the purpose of benefitting him at the detriment of his opponent, then he is an accomplice to a criminal conspiracy under the law, and the 2016 presidential election should be nullified in favor of a new election.

These are not conspiracy theories. These are facts about a conspiracy. And we must, as Americans, in spite of and regardless of partisan divides and party politics, stand up in the name of our democracy and its enduring principals, and end this abomination now:

Hillary Clinton, ought to contest the outcome of the 2016 presidential election in federal district court. No one else may have constitutional standing to do so. The political question doctrine and the court in Lujan v. Wildlife may have rendered voters unable to petition the court for redress in this matter for lack of standing.

There is case law on point that suggests that a new election IS constitutionally permissible EVEN at the presidential level, according to Donohue vs. Board of Elections. The Donohue case relies on a premise that is repeatedly found in legal rationale on elections cases over and over again: Federal district courts have broad discretionary power in remedying affronts to our free and fair elections.

This principle was used in Marks v. Stinson, a federal court case that saw a sitting state senator in Pennsylvania being removed from office and replaced by his erstwhile opponent from the previous November's election when it was found that he had engaged in wrongdoing that could have affected the outcome of the election. In the Marks v. Stinson case, the court found that the senator had 1) engaged in wrongdoing 2) that benefitted him and harmed his opponent 3) and the will of the electorate was not reflected in the outcome.

The will of the electorate is clear: 3 million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than Mr. Trump. The electoral college was decided by 79,000 votes in three states: WI, MI, and PA.

Knowledge of the conspiracy makes Donald liable for wrongdoing in the election. Donald Trump repeatedly denied that Russians were even involved, when he knew that in July 2016 that his son, his son-in-law, and other high profile members of his team met with Russian representatives to discuss helping him win the White House.

Enough is enough.