Patterico's Pontifications


NBC: Putin Personally Behind Hacking of DNC

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 pm

NBC News:

U.S. intelligence officials now believe with “a high level of confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.

Putin’s objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a “vendetta” against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to “split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn’t depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore,” the official said.

Ultimately, the CIA has assessed, the Russian government wanted to elect Donald Trump. The FBI and other agencies don’t fully endorse that view, but few officials would dispute that the Russian operation was intended to harm Clinton’s candidacy by leaking embarrassing emails about Democrats.

. . . .

Now the U.S has solid information tying Putin to the operation, the intelligence officials say. Their use of the term “high confidence” implies that the intelligence is nearly incontrovertible.

Meanwhile, Putin’s popularity is on the rise with Republicans . . . and bigly. Republicans’ net favorability towards Putin was -66% in July 2014. In December 2016, it is now . . . -10%.

That’s a 56-point gain amongst Republicans. Meanwhile, Putin has maintained about the same (un)favorable rating from Democrats: -54% in July 2014, compared to -62% today.

What explains this? Partisan politics. I can hardly improve on what Allahpundit at Hot Air had to say about the poll results:

Republican opinion on Putin seems to have moved not because Trump is pro-Russia or because there’s suddenly an opportunity for better relations with Moscow. It moved because Russia interfered in the election to the Democrats’ detriment, whether that was the core motive or not. That’s the point we’ve reached in partisan polarization, apparently. Want better relations with the U.S.? Then do what you can, legal or not, to make the eventual winning party’s path to electoral victory easier.

To put that another way, the surge in favorability among Republicans for a Russian fascist and kleptocrat who’s used anti-American propaganda relentlessly to consolidate power at home may be a more or less straightforward byproduct of partisan politics.

Americans’ assessment: Vladimir Putin may have imprisoned and even murdered political opponents, punished and even killed journalists, and invaded Crimea . . . but at least he helped elect Donald Trump. Two big thumbs up!

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

Has-Been Celebrities Inadvertently Persuade Electors Not to Change Their Vote

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:11 pm

It’s almost a parody. A bunch of people you mostly can’t recognize, meaningfully pushing a stupid leftist idea with cuts from “celebrity” to “celebrity” and a lot of repetition, all designed to make you point and laugh.

Hahahahahahaha no.

Lessig: Up to 20 Electors Might Flip and Vote Against Trump — But Can They?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:30 am

POLITICO (cached link; no links for bullies):

Larry Lessig, a Harvard University constitutional law professor who made a brief run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, claimed Tuesday that 20 Republican members of the Electoral College are considering voting against Donald Trump, a figure that would put anti-Trump activists more than halfway toward stalling Trump’s election.

Lessig’s anti-Trump group, “Electors Trust,” has been offering pro bono legal counsel to Republican presidential electors considering ditching Trump and has been acting as a clearinghouse for electors to privately communicate their intentions.

I tend to think this is ridiculous — but then, I thought the prospect of electing Donald Trump was ridiculous too. It seems supremely unlikely that this is going to change anything. The GOP whip count says it’s not happening and Lessig is wrong.

Possibly a more interesting question is whether electors can vote for someone other than the person a majority of state voters chose.

I think they can.

Politically, it would be a disaster, and people would reach for their pitchforks and torches. But constitutionally, I think they could do it.

I have not researched the law in this area. But based solely on a reading of the Constitution and on our nation’s history, my tentative view is that electors can vote for whom they want. Article II and the 12th Amendment give the authority to vote for the President to “The Electors.” Any state law that requires them to vote for the person chosen by the majority of the state voters would be an amendment to the Constitution that has not gone through the amendment process, and accordingly would be unconstitutional.

That’s the text. As for the history, keep in mind that there were faithless electors as early as the second election of James Madison.

I’m aware that two Hillary Clinton electors filed a suit in Colorado to invalidate a state law requiring them to vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote.

Colorado law prohibits them from shifting their allegiances, and Republican Secretary of State Wayne Williams has pledged to replace them if they do so — two moves the electors argue violate the U.S. Constitution.

On Monday, a judge denied preliminary relief to these electors, and delivered a lot of huffing and puffing about the sanctity of the vote and the outrage this would cause, yada yada yada. All of this is irrelevant to the constitutional question, but judges gonna monologue.

I don’t know whether the judge has issued a written ruling, but the issue in that case comes down to whether we are talking about requiring the legislators to vote a certain way, which seems impermissible, or replacing them when they indicate they are planning to be faithless, which may be constitutional.

In Article II, the Constitution gives the states authority to appoint electors “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” So if state law allows the electors to be replaced before the vote for any reason — including their declaration that they are going to be faithless to the vote of the people of the state — then replacing them before the vote could well be constitutional.

Replacing them after they have voted the “wrong” way would presumably not be.

Again, Lessig’s faithless elector scenario seems politically fruitless — and if it worked, it would make a lot of people angry — but we must adhere to the Constitution at all times, regardless of how it makes people feel. That’s an unpopular position these days, but it’s mine.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1743 secs.