Russian Hackers Aided Trump Campaign

As long as the information is always factual, I've no problem with it, once they start making mistakes or intentionally falsifying, then that crosses a line.

Iran. I agree, they probably will be the ones. Now they have billions of dollars to play with too. :/

 

Here's more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...s-legal-authority_us_584be136e4b0151082221b9c
Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton
12/10/2016 06:28 am ET | Updated 3 hours ago
44k

Alex Mohajer
Political Writer and Commentator

A 1995 federal court ruling out of Pennsylvania may offer some clues to Clinton supporters as to possible legal authority for removing an elected official from office and replacing them with their erstwhile opponent.

In light of late-breaking reports Friday evening that Russians interfered with the 2016 presidential election to assist Donald Trump’s victory, Clinton supporters are furiously in pursuit of remedies.

At 10:45 p.m. Friday evening, the Washington Post broke an explosive story alleging that Russians had interfered with the 2016 presidential election in order to assist Donald Trump in a victory over democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week.

The development has Clinton supporters and other concerned Americans confused and hot in pursuit of potential remedies. No clear constitutional remedy exists to halt the certification of the outcome. Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the power to determine the date by which the Electoral College will cast their votes, presently set for December 19. In recent weeks, a massive online movement asking members of the Electoral College to become “faithless” or “conscientious” electors and to vote for Clinton instead of Trump has garnered national attention.

The electors would be well within their constitutional authority to do so, say groups like Hamilton’s Electors, which claims that the purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent demagogues like Mr. Trump from assuming the nation’s highest office. A petition urging the Electoral College to make Hillary Clinton president has gained nearly 5 million signatures.

Proponents of this strategy are concerned, with good reason, about the likelihood it will succeed. With Donald Trump having won 306 Electoral College votes, 37 Republican electors would need to switch their votes to Clinton, a tall order, and in the event that no one candidate has 270 electoral votes, the decision would go to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
Follow
Morgan @SouthSeaGold [MENTION=52375]ale[/MENTION]xMohajer @Bros4Hillary Act how? I'm doing this.
1:47 AM - 10 Dec 2016
250 250 Retweets 187 187 likes
Some social media users have begun circulating the phone numbers of various state attorneys general, urging fellow citizens to contact them and request that the Electoral College voters be enjoined from casting their vote until such time that all formal investigations of Russian hacking conclude. Once the electors cast their votes on December 19, they fear, any constitutional means for preventing Trump’s road to the White House will be exhausted.

However, at least one court decision suggests there is some federal authority to invalidate the election outcome after the fact.

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the ruling of a federal district judge in Pennsylvania that invalidated a state senate election due to fraud, ordering the winner be removed from office and the subsequent vacancy be filled by his opponent. (Marks v. Stinson, 1994)

The Pennsylvania state senate held a special election in November 1993 to fill a seat that had been left vacant by the death of the previous democratic senator, and pitted Republican Bruce Marks against Democrat William G. Stinson for the spot. Stinson was named the winner, but massive fraud was later uncovered that resulted in litigation.

Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce laws, and hurried to certify Stinson the winner in order to bury the story. The narrative recalls the Washington Post’s revelation that Republican Mitch McConnell was aware of the CIA’s conclusion that Russians had intervened and opted to do nothing.

In February 1994, after Stinson had already taken office, a federal judge ordered he “be removed from his State Senate office and that [his opponent, Bruce Marks] be certified the winner within 72 hours.”

Stinson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but ultimately, this was the first known case in which a federal judge reversed an election outcome. In January 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand.

The high court’s decision to not interfere with the lower court’s ruling indicates at least some federal legal precedent that high courts may rule the outcome of an election invalid due to fraud or interference. Which is to say, that if after Donald Trump assumes office it is shown that Russian hacking (or any fraud, for that matter) robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency, there is some legal authority on point that implies courts could seat Clinton instead.

Obviously both the stakes and the office in question are much higher than in the 1994 case. There has been no case of first impression with regards to the presidency being overturned to the wrongful winner’s opponent.

There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analagous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster.

It is not clear how the 1994 federal case would impact a presidential election. Furthermore, that case involved the judge throwing out all absentee ballots and requiring the vote be decided only by those ballots cast at the machine, which would be problematic in the case at present.

As of December 9, Clinton has won the national popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes. According to Cook Political Report, the vote count has Clinton approaching 66 million votes, meaning the first female major-party nominee has already earned more votes than any other presidential candidate in history, second only to Barack Obama (the totals suggest she is on course to surpass the president’s 2012 count, as well).

 

Huffpost, not credible.

 

Wikileaks exposed no corruption. It posted embarrassing internal communications between party officials, and hardly anything else.

Evidently, it conveniently escapes your notice that these leaks were deliberately timed to have the maximum inpact in the Russian campaign to get Trump elected. That is obvious, but none of the useful idiots in Trumpsterland will admit it.

It is hard to imagine that the Russians did not gather similar intelligence on the GOP, or that they intend to use it to influence the Trump Adminstration.

That's what you get when you dance past the fact that a major rival in the world has just interfered in your country's politics so successfully that their intelligence officials are boasting that they installed the President of the United States.

Don't wave your flags at me ever again, if you think this is in any way acceptable.

 

This coming from the same guys who still call China, "Red China"!

The hypocracy is so obvious that it's disgusting.

You make excuses for the fact that the Russians interfered in American democracy. You pretend that it isn't a big deal by inserting qualifying and false adjectives like "so called".

True patriots don't play the role of useful idiots to foreign powers. And they certainly don't make excuses for doing so.

 

David Duke has to be involved!

 

To be honest, a lot of organizations assign passwords and they do it with a discernible formula. One place I worked at did it with the University you last graduated from along with your employee number so once you figured that out, anybody who worked there could hack everybody else's password if they really wanted to. If you were the last hire and UVA246 and the next hire was UCLA then their network password was gonna be UCLA247.

 

How do you know the CIA doesn't have any evidence?

 

Because the FBI said so, and if they had evidence they would release it

 

An anonymous source to the NYT is far from evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

I know your conspiracy theory makes you feel good but you are basing this on literally no evidence so in a fact this is like 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination.

 

So what is being said is that both the CIA and the FBI agree that the Russians selectively released hacks about the Democrats when they had hacks on both political parties. The only difference between the two agencies is that the CIA believes that the Russians were trying to influence the election while the FBI is saying that the goals of Russia are not clear at this time.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry but your statement was that the CIA doesn't have any evidence.

 

Please post where the FBI said there was no evidence of Russian involvement in the hacking.

 

In other words, damn russkies had hacks on both Republicans and Democrats but only released hacks on Democrats, thus playing sides...

sensible, rational folks them russkies

 

Show me the statement that the CIA put out that Russia hacked. A NYT anonymous source is not a CIA statement.

 

This, we dont want actions like this from foreign Governments to become fair and common play in the future.

 

I don't think it's acceptable, but I also don't think it will have the importance that many Dems are subscribing to it. Much more damaging is the fact that it's Hillary's own actions that ultimately compromised herself. Do you think if she can "make a mistake" of that magnitude, that she's capable of being our next president?

I don't trust Hillary Clinton with the presidency of the oval office, and I'll say this: If the Russians did hack into our political communications, they know a lot more than they released. Hillary is still very much compromised. Hillary would not be a fix over Donald.

 

You got it.

 

Present it

 

So, if god forbid it has to come down to something like that. I'd like to propose to put the best American in there. Election be damned.

- - - Updated - - -

So, if god forbid it has to come down to something like that. I'd like to propose to put the best American in there. Election be damned.

 

I think these facts answer your question quite well thank you very much. The pockets of Clinton supporters appear to be very concentrated.

"Sobering facts:
The statistical list below should once and for all answer any troubling dilemmas regarding the existence of the Electoral College.
“There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 2.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
These statistics could change but only slightly."

 

The New York Times? Really?

 

It's amusing that the Left quote from THEIR version of Pravda as an authority on . . . truth.

 

You sound like you're on the CNN payroll.

 

The FBI doesn't agree with the CIA.

 

Did the Russians interfere? Where is this proof? Has the head of the CIA actually made an announcement along with fact, figures, and statistics laying out anything other than presumptions and leftist wishful thinking? Well . . . no.