Economist: Trump's financial conflicts & Russia's election meddling raise questions about legitimacy

[kpete]

It is impossible to know whether the GRU swung the 2016 election, and therefore impossible to say categorically that it did not

.................

The special counsel’s indictment describes a global network of anonymous servers and bitcoin miners, rampant identity theft and money-laundering, all focused on the Russian objective of getting Mr Trump elected. The Russian spies, whose identities, responsibilities and individual activities the indictment meticulously identifies, had a free run of Mrs Clinton’s party and campaign computer files until a few weeks before the election. The indictment suggests that they may additionally have stolen the Clinton team’s voter-targeting data, which in the hands of her opponent could have been a devastating weapon.

Even if those numbers were pinched (and Mrs Clinton’s data people claim to have seen other proof to that effect), it would be impossible to know whether Russia swung the election for Mr Trump. Yet given the extent of its effort and given that it need only have shifted 0.03% of the total number of votes from the Democrats to the Republicans, it might well have done. There is certainly no basis on which to conclude that it did not.

The Democrats’ grousing over this possible election theft will get them nowhere, of course. Yet the grousing is inevitable and a mark of Mr Putin’s indisputable achievement: a serious jolt in Americans’ confidence in the integrity of their elections. Half of Americans think that Mr Trump colluded with the Russians to engineer his election. In the court of public opinion, that arguably makes his presidency illegitimate, which would be corrosive to American democracy even under a much less divisive leader. A governing party mindful of majority sentiment, and ambitious to win it, would respond to that carefully. By treating reasonable concerns about Mr Trump’s election as just another partisan fight, Mr Ryan and his colleagues are instead underlining the extent to which they have abandoned that ambition.

Their complacency towards Mr Trump’s financial conflicts, a second source of doubt about Mr Trump’s presidency, provides another illustration of this. Among innumerable examples, China is reported to have granted trademarks to at least 39 Trump-branded products since his inauguration, including some the president had previously been denied. Mr Trump and his retinue spent almost a third of last year staying, at public expense, at Trump properties. A working weekend at one of the president’s golf courses in Scotland, during which he managed to squeeze in 18 holes in between plotting the downfall of the West, cost American taxpayers almost $70,000. There are laws against such self-enrichment. Yet even as legal challenges to Mr Trump’s behaviour creep through the courts, the Republicans dare not criticise it. To do so might cost them an invitation to Mar-a-Lago.

It might also invite a primary challenge, given the way Mr Trump has weaponised his unpopularity, rallying his supporters against any critic. No doubt right-minded Republicans, among the many who privately abhor Mr Trump, would otherwise speak up. Yet it also seems notable that their unwillingness to do so is consistent with their party’s acceptance of a different sort of illegitimacy. That is the tyranny of minority rule, enabled by the quirks of an electoral system that gives its white, rural supporters more power for fewer votes than the more diverse, clustered Democrats—almost 3m fewer, in the case of Mr Trump’s victory over Mrs Clinton. The adoption of white identity politics represents an embrace of minoritarianism as a core strategy. That led Republicans to Mr Trump. Further compromises with democratic legitimacy have followed.




the rest:
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/07/21/the-republicans-defensiveness-about-russian-hacking-is-revealing?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/therepublicansdefensivenessaboutrussianhackingisrevealinglexington

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. Exactly! No basis for saying the election results were NOT changed

or affected. Been screaming at Dems for this for a long time now. Bad move to say "it (Russian influence) didn't affect the election". Hell, even the press allowed Sanders to say it again yesterday! No, you can't prove it, but a reasonable, thinking person could conclude it.

[Zoonart]

2. N/T

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. ?

[ProfessorGAC]

8. That's Been My Argument

I've told a couple trumpets that while i can't PROVE that it changed the outcome, the facts suggest enough that it might have, that for them to claim it didn't is laughable.

The concept of circumstantial evidence is lost on them, until you hit them over the head with it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Maybe we should turn it around and ask that they prove it didn't.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. I Did That Twice

One of them completely melted down. The other used the "i can't prove a negative" thing. I went back with "You're the one making the case. You saying you're making a case that can't be proven?" He got too busy to talk about it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. You know it was a perfect devious plan...it's impossible

To prove unless u knew exactly how someone decided who to vote for. A poll would be interesting asking what the specific reason was that people decided against Hillary. Or better, find out what the Trussian's spread and have people pick from that. Of course, none of it true. Not the greatest idea...but at least it would link action to outcome

[dhill926]

3. big K & R...

[dalton99a]

4. Kick

[Roland99]

5. Meddling? Meddling?! These aren't some meddlesome kids!!

This was a foreign adversary hacking a fundamental aspect of our democratic systems!!

[lindysalsagal]

6. It's long overdue that the money people recognize that gangsters running the U.S. is not actually go

good.

[ck4829]

9. K&R