[EL] What could be done

[Steve Hoersting]

Thank you, Mark. You just saved me a post. Of course, I might have said
different things, differently.

I might have said "it is [still] reasonable to conclude," in the manner
Larry puts it, that a stray videographer caused an election-eve uprising in
Libya. Had I said it, I might have meant that we should not accept
counter-constitutional changes in policy on the basis of unverifiable
findings, unverifiable by the citizenry.

I might have added that our Framers did not recognize the right of
self-governing citizens to trade information ... except in an environment
of foreign leaf-letting.

I might have said that I, for one, am always skeptical when events and
memes take policymakers to a place they're already traveling. And I cannot
help noticing that some have long wanted to concentrate election
administration (vote tabulation) in a federal agency, rather than have it
be distributed in thousands of uncoordinated hamlets across the land -- as
the Constitution (mostly) requires. Nor can I miss that Jeh Johnson
recently took steps to do just that, when he, days ago, designated
electoral systems as among the nine systems of critical infrastructure.
(Indeed electoral systems are critical: critical they not be nationalized).

I might have added that the latest enactment, the Countering Disinformation
and Propaganda Act of 2016, is a re-framing and magnifying replay of
McCain-Feingold. To the extent I understand it, it deprives funds to
would-be speakers (in the wake of the electoral events of Trump and
Brexit). And, I might have added, it will force Americans and Judges --
who, after all, are only human -- to re-litigate long-standing and recent
speech cases, this time in the posture of National Security.

I might have added that, in one sense, "Russia" is the new "Enron."

And I might have mentioned that, in the long run, the Progressives will
benefit from none of this; that such measures can only benefit the
Neoconservatives

I might have fleshed-out all these things, Mark. But I don't need to do
that. Your post will do nicely.

Steve



On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Mark Rush <markrush7983 at gmail.com> wrote:

> what, realistically can be done?  "Do Over?"
>
> While one may or may not like Trump's ties to Russia or Putin, in the end,
> Russia is another interest group with an interest in the election.  Some of
> them spend lots of money, others others speak and write, others...hack.
> The latter situation is one that we unfortunately can't control.
>
> We can try to control money through better campaign spending legislation.
> But the realities of the cyberworld indicate that anyone from the Russian
> government, to the 12 year old hacker in Boise who is home from school with
> the flu for several days now have the power to effect all sorts of
> cybermischief.  And, sadly, what's sauce for the goose...:
> http://www.salon.com/2016/08/02/the_hypocrisy_of_american_exceptionalism_
> missing_the_big_picture_of_the_dncs_alleged_election_meddling/
>
> No one has come up with a suggestion to control hacking that does not
> entail an Orwellian surveillance operation.
>
> Also, realistically, what had the greater effect?  The hack (whose real
> impact is still somewhat fuzzy) or Comey? Clinton blamed the FBI for the
> loss:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/hillary-
> clinton-james-comey.html
>
> It's 21st century America...
>
> cheers to all
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In an election as close as this one was in several key states, I think it
>> can be concluded that the actions of the Russian government influenced
>> public opinion in the U.S. to a degree that it is reasonable to believe it
>> changed the result of the election. But under our system, even if it were
>> proved, what could be done.
>>
>> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-11-most-important
>> -lines-from-the-new-intelligence-report-on-russia%e2%80%99s-
>> hacking/ar-BBxYXGw?li=BBnb7Kz
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Rush
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170108/1d7e9639/attachment-0001.html>