[EL] What could be done

Wed Jan 11 11:13:21 PST 2017

This -- and you'll need to watch most of it to get the gist -- provides
some indication of what I may have addressed had I not simply endorsed
Mark's post... meant, that is, as to who benefits by recent enactments and
actions.

(It ain't Progressives who benefit... not as we've come to understand them).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DycOPMSk168

Thank you.

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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-clint
>> on-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
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170111/e75c6eed/attachment-0001.html>