Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Controversy over Election 2016 and False Logic
Rhetoric and Allegation related to Russian hacking claimed correlation to an impact on the US Presidential election seems to miss interpret intelligence statements by the CIA. The premise of the rhetoric leads to false logical correlation. The statements touted by the democrats are attributed to the CIA are that the illegal hacking impacted the election. The statement is that there was hacking. If I understand the world today, the country hack each other. It’s the release of the information to the public, not the tampering with voting. If there was tampering with voting that is one thing. But the October surprise here was Weiner and his wife laptop with all of Hillary’s emails backed up on it which was really the reminder to the Nation that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information. It was highlighted for voters. All non-classified information would be subject to FOI but Clinton destroyed it. Remember that Obama and Clinton were allowing the government to monitor US citizens telephone and electronic communications. But remember who put that information out in the public – it was the New York City Police Department and other Weiner investigators.
Obviously the hacking of email accounts and servers is illegal. Ask the Sarah Palin high school hacker. However the information obtained could have been obtained by bring a bill of discovery especially if the was fraud involved which clearly there was at the DNC when the DNC officials were attempting to rig the democratic convention. The DNC is a private entity and required to abide by the DNC rules. Giving questions to one candidate in a debate over another candidate is certainly a form of rigging or fraud on the public. Further Clinton’s public emails are public information and the misappropriation or misuse of public information could be subject to several causes of action by members of the public. It can be bothersome and time consuming but you have to turn over.
While the subpoena of webmail accounts is not illegal according to the Justice department and its treatment of information stored on systems not under the control of the users and/or based upon the policy of the third party provider (i.e. google or yahoo) the information can be easily and lawfully obtained.
According to the New York Time September 28, 2013 article “disclosures add to the growing body of knowledge in recent months about the N.S.A.’s access to and use of private information concerning Americans, prompting lawmakers in Washington to call for reining in the agency and President Obama to order an examination of its surveillance policies. Almost everything about the agency’s operations is hidden, and the decision to revise the limits concerning Americans was made in secret, without review by the nation’s intelligence court or any public debate.” The NY Times stated that “the legal underpinning of the policy change, she said, was a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that Americans could have no expectation of privacy about what numbers they had called. Based on that ruling, the Justice Department and the Pentagon decided that it was permissible to create contact chains using Americans’ “metadata,” which includes the timing, location and other details of calls and e-mails, but not their content. The agency is not required to seek warrants for the analyses from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”
To circle back to the logic did it impact the election? No not really. Does the release of public information or information which relates to potential fraud claims or rigging claims which are subject to investigation through a bill of discovery make people more informed, probably not since they already made up their minds. Remember there has been no denial that the information is false or incorrect by the parties hacked. The highlighting of the Clinton violations by Weiner and his wife’s laptop as part of an investigation merely served as a reminder not by a foreign government but by New York City Law Enforcement during its investigations of Weiner’s predatory conduct of minors.
Did the New York Times try to influence the election? Isn’t one if it major shareholders a Mexican billionaire (actually one of the richest people on earth) who has control over the Mexican government and its telecommunication systems. HMMM?
Sarah Palin’s yahoo webmail account was hacked by some high school kid back in 2008. John Podesta email account was a gmail account, or a web mail account like General Petraeus web mail account. Podesta’s emails were certainly obtained illegally but it was a poor choice knowing what he knew about web email accounts. Also remember this - who knows if the Clintons “lost” or “destroyed” laptops and IPhones and Blackberries were found by someone and the information obtained by turning them on. Yes it is private and so was Billy Bush conversation. But a third party had it so it went public.
Does that information being made public change how people voted? Does that influence the election? Probably not. The reason is the fact that the Electoral College went one way based upon multiple states proving States rights are alive – and the popular vote went the other way due to two large States New York and California; these results tell us that the release of the information really had no influence on the election. For those of us who looked at the polls read the underlying data and those of us who could not understand why the polling conclusions conflicted with the data – tells me- that there was no real influence. I will note the conclusions of the pollsters where influenced by the releases of the hacked emails and the Weiner laptop but the underlying data before and after in those polls was not really did not change, the pollsters just over sampled and over emphasized certain data in their conclusions, just look at the polling data on real clear politics, they just did not balance the numbers. I believe based upon the proper weighing of the polling data, essentially my opinion is - that this was why President Trump was saying that the election was rigged because if he lost it did not jive with the actual polling data that his campaign was collecting.
Do hearing subject all of these sources to re-disclosure for confirmation that the information is true, that the primary was rigged and that the campaign manager has certain feelings about folks who vote that is not flattering or that Wieners laptop should be sifted thru, WELL I guess hearing would.
Attorney Jason L. McCoy is a civil trial lawyer who represents plaintiffs in product liability actions, defective premises actions, inadequate security cases, drug litigation, tractor trailer wrecks, wrongful death actions, and motor vehicle wrecks, and commercial litigations, he represents many local, national and international corporations as corporate counsel in transactions, litigation and corporate formation. Mr. McCoy is licensed in State and Federal Court in Connecticut. Mr. McCoy is a member Presidential Member of the American Association for Justice, a member of the Board of Governor for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association and serves on its education committee, and a member of the Tolland, Connecticut and American Bar Associations. Mr. McCoy is a Member of the Million Dollar Verdict Forum. Mr. McCoy has presented nationally to members of the American Association for Justice on inadequate security, Mr. McCoy has presented to the Connecticut Trial Lawyer Association on several occasions on focus groups, story telling and closing arguments, legal emergencies, and handling cases in federal court. http://www.ctlawyer.biz/