From Those Fake News Pinkos At The Wall Street Journal...

[Lord Jim]

(Note: I would have preferred to post the actual editorial, but those running dog lackeys of capitalist imperialism insist on a paid account to access their articles...)

WSJ Editorial: Trump Has a Credibility Problem, Most Americans ‘May Conclude He’s a Fake President’

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial out tonight with serious criticisms of President Trump for his “seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods.”

The crux of the editorial concerns the president’s wiretapping claim that has been refuted by a number of intelligence officials and the heads of the House and Senate Intel Committees. Yet, in the words of the Journal, Trump “clings to his assertion like a drunk to an empty gin bottle.”

And that’s only the tip of the iceberg, because the editorial calls Trump “his own worst political enemy” and says his falsehoods and credibility issues will continue to hurt him:

If President Trump announces that North Korea launched a missile that landed within 100 miles of Hawaii, would most Americans believe him? Would the rest of the world? We’re not sure, which speaks to the damage that Mr. Trump is doing…

Two months into his Presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump’s approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn’t show more respect for the truth most Americans may conclude he’s a fake President.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/wsj-edit ... president/


I'm not going to shell out 12 smackers for a 12 week subscription to the on-line version of the WSJ, but if anyone wants to, (or already has a subscription) you can read the article in its entirety here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-presiden ... 1490138920

(Then you can copy and paste it and post it here, and "stick it to The Man" )

[Guinevere]

The Hill (more fake pinko newsies) also has an article on the article. I think this is the best line:

"Yet the President clings to his assertion like a drunk to an empty gin bottle, rolling out his press spokesman to make more dubious claims," the editors write.

(Referring to the Obama wiretap claim)

The WSJ editors just referred to the (gack) President as a drunk. We are so far into surrealland I'm not sure how we get back.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... redibility

[ex-khobar Andy]

I posted something along these lines almost a couple of months ago, but let me ask this question again. Suppose Comey's investigation turns up irrefutable evidence that the Russians did in fact seek to subvert the election. This could be actual tampering with vote counts in some way, or general attempts to push opinion in one direction. These could be with or without the connivance of the Trump campaign.

Is there anyone or any body that has the authority to take action to annul the election? I suppose if it could be proved that Trump himself in some way directed the effort we could go the impeachment route which gets us to Pence whose only saving grace, in my opinion, is that there is probably less likelihood he will get us all killed in the short term. My guess is that if there is one skill Trump has learned over the course of his business career, it is to keep traces of his little fingers well away from the action.

If as I suspect Trump's BFF Vlad is found to have done his best to push things in one direction is there anything we can do besides wring our hands? I suppose we could hope that out of a sense of shame the President could decide to act in a purely bipartisan manner for the next 3.833 years until the electorate have the constitutionally-provided right to correct their mistake. I'm not holding my breath on that . . .

[Guinevere]

Andy, I answered your question (which was slightly different) on December 11, 2016. This is what I wrote:

First of all, you don't want anyone suspending the Constitution, nor do I think there is any lawful way in which it could be done (ignore all the crazy stuff that comes up if you use the Google on the subject -- it is unbalanced ranting). There is a provision to suspend the writ of habeas corpus during times of war. Article I, section 9 (which is limits on the power of Congress) states:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

(This last clause is the emoluments clause, being talked about quite a bit lately, which Larry Tribe and others believe requires the P-E to completely and fully liquidate or divest himself of his holdings (and not into a trust managed by his children), or he will be in violation of the Constitution as soon as he is sworn in.)

I don't have time to give you the full history of habeas, but there is a decent wiki article on it here, including a discussion of its use during the Civil War, and the federal laws enacted since:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_co ... ted_States

But back to the original question -- I'm going to tell you what I think from a pragmatic, litigator's view of the world. The academic professorial response may be quite different. First, evidence has to be examined and gathered. Evidence that would result in demonstrable facts, after being tried in a court of law or in some proceeding with cross-examination and right to counsel and all the requisite procedures, that the Russian tampering influenced the election outcome. That's a pretty difficult bar. Then the influence would also have to be a violation of federal law. I assume there is some law that would be violated, but I don't know the remedy. A new election? Sanctions against Russia? If it could be shown this was done at the behest of the P-E, then we are into impeachment territory, but also recall that IF impeachment goes through in the House, there is a still a Senate trial to determine if a President should be removed from office. Nixon resigned to avoid that trial. Bill Clinton was acquitted, as was Andrew Johnson.

This is all not even close to charted territory. The best legal brains in the country are working on it, thinking about it, writing about it, talking about it. I'm trying to absorb as much as I can, but I'm swamped with my own work and so I haven't spent as much time on this as I probably should. Oh for Andrew, indeed.

Anyone else reading and watching and researching care to share their thoughts and ideas?

Here's the link:viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16148&p=222088&hili ... on#p222088

No one else really answered the question, and I have not done any further research, or read anything directly on point. Has anyone else here done the same? I'm going to reach out to some academic-lawyer friends and see what they have to say.

[Lord Jim]

Suppose Comey's investigation turns up irrefutable evidence that the Russians did in fact seek to subvert the election. This could be actual tampering with vote counts in some way, or general attempts to push opinion in one direction.

Those are two very different questions...(And as bad as the second point is, the first would be far more serious and worrisome...)

On the first point, there has never been any serious evidence put forward, or a report made by any official in a position to know, that the Russians actually successfully hacked voting machines and were able to change votes.

Your second point, "general attempts to push opinion in one direction" is a confirmed fact. It's been confirmed publicly by a number of intelligence officials and agencies, most recently again by Comey on Monday.

But the problem of course is that unlike direct hacking that results in phony vote counts, (for which there is no evidence) it's impossible to quantify the effect of the release of the emails Russia hacked on the outcome of the election.

Obviously, it didn't help the Clinton campaign, (my personal suspicion is that given the content of the emails that were hacked and released, it didn't change votes so much as maybe suppress some of the vote from Sanders supporters ) but was the negative effect enough to be responsible for the election outcome? This is an unknowable. (Afterall, there were many other factors influencing that election, pro and con on both sides.)

These could be with or without the connivance of the Trump campaign...

... I suppose if it could be proved that Trump himself in some way directed the effort we could go the impeachment

Determining whether or not there was/is collusion or a quid pro quo between Trump and the Russians, (not just on the effort to influence the election, but also on the pro-Russian policy positions Trump has taken) is the primary purpose of the investigations currently taking place. (Diversions that Trump and others try to throw up notwithstanding)

That's the $64,000 question, and if clear proof of this is uncovered, I expect he will be impeached and removed, or resign to avoid that fate. (Like Nixon did)

(I don't suppose that it will come as a surprise to anyone that I am fervently hoping that this turns out to be the case. This is the one issue that, if there's real substance to it, could bring an early end to his Presidency.)

is there anything we can do besides wring our hands?

Even if it turns out that strong evidence Trump colluding or coordinating with Russia isn't developed, there are absolutely things we can and should do to punish and retaliate against the Putin regime for its outrageous attempt to influence a US Presidential election.

Publicly we should be increasing sanctions, (the ones imposed by Obama on his way out were his usual "day late and a dollar short " sort of "action") and we should be working with our allies (who have also been subjected to Russian election meddling) to do the same.

Privately, we should be planning and executing a cyber attack op of sufficient magnitude that it will serve as a deterrent to any further such attacks by Putin. ( One creative idea that occurs to me would be to track down some of his bank accounts and those of his oligarch pals, and transfer the money out in a way that they couldn't get it back...That might get their attention...then we could take the funds and give them to the Ukrainians... )

The problem with any measures like these being taken of course, is that they would require the cooperation of Donald Trump...

And that ain't going to be forthcoming...

So the answer is yes, there are many things we could and should do, but they aren't to happen as long as Donald Trump is President...

[ex-khobar Andy]

Thanks Guin - I remembered your response (and those of others) but I could not find it. What I have not seen either on a serious news program or outside some of the wilder sites, is any review of what happens next if Comey does in fact find a smoking gun. Even Nixon's resignation was not down to any attempt, successful or not, to subvert the election but because of the cover up. Democrats may have had cause to assume that the attempted break-in was only the iceberg' s tip and that other successful attempts to change the outcome were never detected. I don't recall if that was a serious argument ever made. There have been plausible accounts of election misdeeds - for example JFK in Cook County. Do we just wait for Comey to open the box for us on Christmas Day? It may be that someone somewhere has to act like a grownup and if that is SCOTUS even including Gorsuch, I would not have a problem with that. In many countries the military would see this as a golden opportunity. SCOTUS is the least of many evils.

[Guinevere]

Andy, there is, as far I can tell, simply no provision for dealing with that specific question (i.e., what happens to an election, if there is evidence of tampering that changed the result). As LJ alluded to above, and as I said before, evidence that any Russian tampering changed the actual outcome would be very very difficult to come by, and the proofs very very difficult. There are just too many factors that go into decision-making. It's too subjective, and determining the quantum of "changed votes" would be virtually impossible. There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses the question. Federal election law calls for fines/jail for election tampering/fraud/intimidation, etc. I can't find any place where it requires a re-do.

US Gov fact sheet on federal election laws, with section near the bottom on fraud and "election crimes": https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws

You can see, what we are talking about today just isn't contemplated. We are beyond the pale (ironically, since the Pale was, in one context, essentially a Russian ghetto for its jewish population).

[Sue U]

I think Jim has it substantially correct; there's no provision for overturning the election (the Electoral College was supposed to be the last check on a corrupted process), now there's only impeachment. As for impeachment, there's no requirement that there be a quid-pro-quo in order to convict, as there would be in an official corruption case. Impeachable offenses are political crimes that are whatever Congress says they are, and collusion/conspiracy with a foreign power to affect the electoral process -- regardless of any objectively measurable effect -- could certainly be sufficient grounds for impeachment. Covering it up (i.e., "obstruction of justice") could be a more familiar impeachable offense in itself (as was the case with Nixon), or may be just the icing on the cake.

[Guinevere]

I found a NYT report of this case, where a PA Federal a District Court judge reportedly tossed the results of a special state election for state senate. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vo ... enate.html. I have to find and read and research the actual decision though.

ETA: it's your backyard, Sue. Any recollection of the case facts, appeal, and impact?

[Econoline]

[RayThom]

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial out tonight with serious criticisms of President Trump for his “seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods.”

And this from the right leaning WSJ? Impressive.

The kingdom IS crumbling. I still keep the faith that Lord Dampnut's reign will be short lived. That's the good news. The bad news? Radical Conservative fundamentalist, Mike Pence, steps in as regent.

Out of the frying pan -- into the fire.

[Sue U]

I found a NYT report of this case, where a PA Federal a District Court judge reportedly tossed the results of a special state election for state senate. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vo ... enate.html. I have to find and read and research the actual decision though.

ETA: it's your backyard, Sue. Any recollection of the case facts, appeal, and impact?

I don't remember the case itself (I was back in Jersey by then), but I did find the Third Circuit opinion on the appeal, which is truly fascinating from a public policy perspective, especially this bit:

Having concluded that the district court properly exercised its jurisdiction and that the record supports its findings on the probability of success and irreparable injury, we now turn to the remedy issue. The state elections process recognized Stinson as the winner of the election. While the district court found for purposes of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion that wrongdoing affected the election, it did not find, even for that limited purpose, that Stinson's election was attributable to wrongdoing. The district court did not find that Stinson failed to receive a plurality of the legally cast votes.

On the other hand, contrary to plaintiffs' strenuously pressed argument,12 we do not understand the district court to have concluded that Marks received a plurality of the legally cast ballots. Nor did the district court address the problem created by the fact that some electors who cast tainted absentee ballots undoubtedly would have cast valid votes at the polls had they not been misled (by a conspiracy knowingly supported by state actors) into believing there was a "new way to vote." Thus, while the district court concluded that "no evidence indicates that the machine returns do not reflect the will of the electorate," slip op. at 32, it did not affirmatively conclude that the winner of the machine vote would have won a plurality of the legal votes cast if the wrongdoing had not occurred.

The district court did conclude, with ample record support, that the wrongdoing was substantial, that it could have affected the outcome of the election, and that it rendered the certified vote count an unreliable indicator of the will of the electorate. Having so concluded for the purposes of the preliminary injunction motion, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in
[19 F.3d 887]
restraining Stinson from exercising the powers of the office pendente lite.

The integrity of the election process lies at the heart of any republic. The people, the ultimate source of governmental power, delegate to their elected representatives the authority to take measures which affect their welfare in a multitude of important ways. When a representative exercises that authority under circumstances where the electors have no assurance that he or she was the choice of the plurality of the electors, the legitimacy of the governmental actions taken is suspect. Accordingly, where there is substantial wrongdoing in an election, the effects of which are not capable of quantification but which render the apparent result an unreliable indicium of the will of the electorate, courts have frequently declined to allow the apparent winner to exercise the delegated power. See, e.g., Bell v. Southwell, 376 F.2d 659 (5th Cir.1967). Having tentatively found the facts that it did, we cannot fault the district court for restraining Stinson from exercising the powers that are delegated to a senator by the people, even though the court was not able to find that he received less than a plurality of the legally cast votes.

However, the district court's tentative findings that there was "massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery," and that "many" of the absentee votes were tainted, do not, we conclude, justify its decision to order the certification of Marks. Marks' only claim of authority to exercise the people's delegated power rests upon his receiving a majority of the votes cast on the voting machines. Equating the machine vote with the will of the electorate disenfranchises the voters who cast legal absentee ballots. Moreover, it fails to take into account the will of electors who would have voted at the polling places but who unknowingly cast illegal absentee ballots relying on the assurances that were an integral part of the scheme which "the Board participated in and later tried to conceal." Slip op. at 26.

In the circumstances which confronted the district court, we believe the same principle that justified the unseating of Stinson dictates that Marks not be certified on the basis of the machine vote only. For the actions of a democratically elected body of representatives to be legitimate, the electorate must be assured that each of the representatives was the choice of the electorate. It follows, we believe, that Marks should not be certified unless and until the district court is satisfied that Marks would have won the election but for the wrongdoing.

As the Supreme Court has stated:
Undeniably, the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections. A consistent line of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote, Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 [4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274], and to have their votes counted, United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 [35 S.Ct. 904, 59 L.Ed. 1355].

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1377-78, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1963). These voting rights are potentially violated, however, whenever an individual is sworn in as an elected representative without a demonstration that he or she was the choice of a plurality of the electorate. This is so because the possibility is left open that some other candidate actually received more votes than the declared winner, which would mean that each of the votes cast for this other candidate was ignored.

Plaintiffs argue that to require certainty of results here would be unfair to Marks. They note that the district court tentatively found that the wrongdoing of Stinson and the other defendants may have made it impossible to determine who would have won a fair election. Assuming that it is in fact impossible to determine a certain winner, Marks will be forced to endure the hardship of running again if he still wishes to fill the senate seat. Therefore, plaintiffs argue that Marks will, in effect, be punished for the wrongdoing of the defendants. Plaintiffs suggest that the way to deal with election results that are uncertain as a result of fraud is to have the "punishment" fall on the party who perpetrated the fraud. Plaintiffs' arguments, however,
[19 F.3d 888]
miss the mark. Our primary concern here is not to punish any individual candidate or party, but to promote the public's interest in having legislative power exercised only by those to whom it has been legally delegated. This interest is not served by arbitrarily ignoring the absentee vote, a substantial but undetermined portion of which was either legally cast or came from voters who would have gone to the polls but for the fraud. Just punishment for any wrongdoing that has been perpetrated may be pursued in other proceedings; it is not the objective here.

We find the decision of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065 (1st Cir.1978), instructive here. That case involved a primary election to select a Democratic candidate for a vacancy on the Providence City Council. Rhode Island law provided for absentee ballots in elections of municipal officers but was silent regarding their use in party primaries for municipal office candidates. The officials responsible for the election distributed absentee ballots, and all absentee ballots cast by qualified voters in the manner directed by the board of elections were counted in certifying the winner. In the ensuing litigation the Supreme Court of Rhode Island concluded that there was "no constitutional or statutory basis for allowing ... absentee voters to cast their votes in a primary election." Id. at 1068. The court directed the decertification of the previously declared winner, and the board of canvassers certified a new winner based solely on the machine cast ballots.

A civil rights class action was commenced in federal court by the absentee voters alleging that the failure to count their ballots constituted a violation of the due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court found such a violation, stressing that the plaintiffs had followed the instructions of the officials charged with running the election, and ordered a new election. The Court of Appeals affirmed, observing with respect to the constitutional violation:
[W]hile ... local election irregularities, including even claims of official misconduct, do not usually rise to the level of constitutional violations where adequate state corrective procedures exist, there remain some cases where a federal role is appropriate. The right to vote remains, at bottom, a federally protected right. If the election process itself reaches the point of patent and fundamental unfairness, a violation of the due process clause may be indicated and relief under § 1983 therefore in order. Such a situation must go well beyond the ordinary dispute over the counting and marking of ballots; and the question of the availability of a fully adequate state corrective process is germane. But there is precedent for federal relief where broad-gauged unfairness permeates an election, even if derived from apparently neutral action.
* * * * * *
The present situation, judged in light of the standards we have discussed, presented a due process violation for which relief under § 1983 was appropriate. The district court was not asked to examine the validity of individual ballots or to supervise the administrative details of a local election. It was asked to remedy a broad-gauged unfairness that infected the results of a local election.

Id. at 1077, 1078.

The candidate who won the machine vote argued that the plaintiffs failed to establish that "enough of the disenfranchised absentee voters would have voted in person to have altered the result." Id. at 1079. The court rejected this argument and affirmed the order requiring an election, reasoning:
Given the evidence of some voters—including two who were severely handicapped —that they would have voted in person, and the importance of the right to vote, the court could infer that it was more likely than not that a very significant proportion of those voting by absentee ballot would have gone to the polls had such ballots not been available. While the outcome test provides a sensible guideline for determining when federal judicial invalidation of an election might be warranted [citations omitted], it is not a principle requiring mathematical certainty. In cases of outrageous racial discrimination some courts have chosen not to apply it at all, but to invalidate the election simply for its lack of integrity.... Here, the closeness of the election was such that, given the retroactive invalidation of a potentially controlling number of the votes cast, a new primary was warranted.

Id. at 1080.

While Griffin, unlike this case, did not involve a "massive absentee ballot fraud," that distinction does not diminish its helpfulness here.13 Several points are worthy of note in the context of this case. First, the court concluded that rejection of a ballot where the voter has been effectively deprived of the ability to cast a legal vote implicates federal due process concerns. Second, the court's focus was not upon the alleged prejudice to a candidate who endured the rigors of electioneering and who may have been the choice of the electorate, but rather upon the right of the electors to vote and to have their votes counted. Finally, even in the absence of fraud, where it was not feasible to establish who would have won a properly conducted election, a new election was appropriate to restore the integrity of the electoral process.

[RayThom]

I remember the MARKS v. STINSON ruling.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19948921 ... %20STINSON

[Sue U]

I remember the MARKS v. STINSON ruling.

You should ... I just quoted it at length in the immediately preceding post.

[RayThom]

I remember the MARKS v. STINSON ruling.

You should ... I just quoted it at length in the immediately preceding post.

After I was finished reading my link to make sure it was the one in question, I posted it, only to find that you had already posted your own legal synopsis.

I'm sure it will not happen again.

[Econoline]

I know Jim will find something "Wrong" with this, but I thought this Facebook post by Jim Wright from a couple of months back makes a concise and cogent case for calling what the Russians did what it is: Information Warfare....and also makes a clear distinction between that term and the (inaccurate) term "hacking" which has been thrown about so much lately.

• You need to stop using the word "Hack"
  
  The Russians did not "hack" the US election.
  
  Well, not exactly anyway. Not the way you and the media are using the word.
  
  Look here, precision in language matters because it defines precision of cognition or how we think and see the world.
  
  Precision in warfare matters even more.
  
  "Hack" has a variety of meanings nowadays. But in the current election context and with regards to Russia manipulation, hacking describes a specific form of cyber-attack. When you use the word "hack," when you share memes with the word "hack," when the media and the pundits use the word "hack" in reference to the election, that word invokes a specific public impression.
  
  And that impression is wrong.
  
  Russian operatives did not "hack" the election. Not directly. Not the way public perception, particularly on the Left, is being led to believe.
  
  Hacking is the act of gaining unauthorized access to a computer, a network, systems, computer code, data, or information. There is a variety of ways to go about it depending on the target, from cracking passwords to exploiting security loopholes and poorly designed systems to complex and illegal cyber-tools to the most common security failure: humans.
  
  According to the FBI, Russians gained access to the Democratic National Committee's computer network. They may have had access for more than two years. Russian intelligence may also have gained access to state and local election board computers. Election board, not election/voting machines.
  
  THAT is hacking. Yes.
  
  And it appears, if US intelligence assessments are correct, that the Russians then used that access to steal DNC emails, particularly those pertaining to the Clinton campaign, and gave that information via several cutouts to Wikileaks for publication.
  
  This was done specifically to manipulate public perception.
  
  Now, while hacking was part of that process, hacking is only a SMALL part of a much larger campaign to alter the outcome of the US election in a manner more favorable to Russia.
  
  That process is called Information Operations, or more precisely in this case: Information Warfare.
  
  What America is looking at is an artifact of the Information Age.
  
  Information ITSELF becomes an infinitely scalable weapon capable of targeting a single individual or entire populations. This is what I used to do for a living. I was damned good at it. I know it when I see it.
  
  Hacking a voting machine, directly manipulating votes, would be incredibly difficult. Oh, any single machine -- depending on certain factors -- would be easy, but hacking the vote on any scale large enough to matter would be almost impossible. And would require multiple lines of attack against widely different systems in thousands of locations around the world. Not impossible, but highly unlikely outside of Hollywood on any practical scale with any degree of certainty. Worse, it leaves a trail. Thousands of people, tens of thousands, scrutinize our various election systems. Large scale hacking could be detected any any level, from the voting machines themselves to the vote tallying systems to the communications lines, routers, hubs, gateways, and etc used to gain access. Sooner or later, the manipulation would come to light AND BE PROVABLE AND TRACEABLE BACK TO ORIGIN.
  
  And it's unnecessary. An unnecessary risk. An unnecessary act of war.
  
  Allow me an example: What's the easiest, most certain way, to protect yourself from an enemy missile? It's not a secret. The most certain way to protect yourself from a missile is to destroy or disable the weapon before it can launch. Once it's in the air things became VASTLY more difficult. But on the ground? You have all kinds of options from physical destruction of the launching system to severing the communication system that ties the weapon to those who control it and guide it. In the air, a missile is nearly impossible to destroy, on the ground it's vulnerable to a variety of countermeasures.
  
  You don't need to hack the voting machines. That's hard.
  
  Not when you can manipulate public perception. That's easy.
  
  You don't need to change votes inside a voting machine when you can keep VOTERS from showing up in the first place.
  
  That's what happened here.
  
  Russia, directed at the highest level, engaged in a campaign of information warfare, using the IW sub-strategy of psychological operations, to manipulate public perception of the candidates. Properly implemented, Information Warfare is based on the truth and thus becomes self-sustaining, a matter of faith. The alternate reality it creates BECOMES reality and can't be disproved to those without the proper training and experience and information.
  
  For example: Everything Wikileaks released regarding Hillary Clinton's email was true.
  
  Of course it was. You were seeing the actual emails, weren't you?
  
  Anyone can point to those documents as "proof" of whatever they like.
  
  Because those are true, valid documents.
  
  They just aren't the whole truth.
  
  They are just the part of the truth Russia wanted you to see. The context, the rest of the truth, the Republican National Committee emails, Trump's email, RUSSIA'S email, you didn't see any of that. Your perception is shaped by incomplete information.
  
  Those who control the information, control your perception.
  
  In a properly executed information warfare campaign, the target does most of the work for you without even realizing it. James Comey's ill-timed announcement, the Benghazi committees, the press, BOTH campaigns' efforts to discredit the other and to shape public perception and the efforts of Third Parties to discredit mainstream candidates, the general untrustworthiness of political parties, efforts by those in power to disenfranchise segments of the population (such as in North Carolina, or abuse of the political process via things like gerrymandering) and above all a public that eschews critical thinking and deliberately embraces false narratives, ALL of those things contributed to the success of the Russian campaign.
  
  "Hacking" oversimplifies the situation.
  
  "Hacking" was only a small part of a much larger campaign waged against American democracy, and the least important part at that. (no really, Foreign interests could STILL have manipulated public perception without the hacked emails. The emails just made it easier).
  
  By using the word "hacking" instead of the more correct terms Information Warfare, Psychological Warfare, Perception Warfare, we make ourselves vulnerable.
  
  Precision in language matters because it defines precision of cognition or how we think and see the world.
  
  Precision in warfare matters even more.
  
  Without that understanding, that precision, you can't formulate effective countermeasures and you can't tell if they are working.
  
  Without that understanding, we OURSELVES become willing allies in the campaign against our own national interests.

ETA:

• (my personal suspicion is that given the content of the emails that were hacked and released, it didn't change votes so much as maybe suppress some of the vote from Sanders supporters )

Besides the Sanders supporters, another BIG group whose votes were probably suppressed is the (relatively) sane Republicans like Lord Jim who saw the clear danger of electing Trump, but found it very difficult to cast a vote for Clinton.

[Bicycle Bill]

"Yet the President clings to his assertion like a drunk to an empty gin bottle..."

The WSJ editors just referred to compared the (gack) President as to a drunk.  We are so far into surrealland I'm not sure how we get back.

Fixed it for you.  What the WSJ wrote was simile; what you posted was closer to libel... and of all people, counselor, you should be aware of that.

No need to reply; I know what comes next.  Go eff myself, right?

-"BB"-

[Guinevere]

If you weren't so aggressively assholeric in your correction, perhaps I would agree with you about the simile part (you're entirely wrong about the libel bit).

[Burning Petard]

In my ignorant layman understanding of Times v Sullivan, the NY Times ( and anyone else) can call the president anything and there is no damage for libel as long as the President can tweet. But I would never say President Trump is a drunk. It is a well established non-fake fact that he never drinks ethanol in any form. However that may be indication that he is a closet Muslim or Mormon.

snailgate

[oldr_n_wsr]

he never drinks ethanol in any form.

His brother Fred Trump Jr died of alcoholism (or it's related physical problems).