The Third Presidential Debate and the Threat to Democracy<\/h3>\n
We recall the famous remark during the third Presidential debate. It\u00a0sparked furious\u00a0claims that the foundations of our democracy were being jeopardized.<\/p>\n [Chris Wallace]: Will you absolutely accept the results of this election?<\/p>\n [Donald Trump]: I will look at it at the time<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And then came Mrs. Clinton’s equally famous reply:<\/p>\n That is not the way our democracy works. \u00a0[The United States has been] around for 240 years. \u00a0We’ve had free and fair elections. \u00a0We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. \u00a0And that is what must be expected [from a Presidential candidate].<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Mr. Trump’s comment was claimed to be monumental. \u00a0Some called it “a stunning moment<\/a> that has never been seen in the weeks before a modern presidential election.” \u00a0Mr. Trump’s position was so bad that it “threatens to cast doubt on one of the fundamental principles of American politics – the peaceful, undisputed transfer of power from one president to a successor who is recognized as legitimate after winning an election.”<\/p>\n So here we are after the election and, guess what? \u00a0We have a challenge to our democracy – but this time from the losing Democratic side that had not expected to lose.<\/p>\n Mrs. Clinton was right. \u00a0We should accept the outcomes of elections, even when our candidate doesn’t win. \u00a0It is hypocritical to advocate the moral position that election results must be respected, and then fail to do so, with the exceptions that we will attempt to define below.<\/p>\n Sadly, national leaders who stood quietly behind their party nominee’s comments now challenge directly the election results. \u00a0Two people who could fairly be seen as Mrs. Clinton’s surrogates raised the specter of illegitimacy directly. \u00a0Her campaign director, John Podesta, stated that:<\/p>\n It’s very much unknown whether there was collusion [between the Russian government and Mr. Trump]. \u00a0What did “Trump Inc.” know, and when did they know it? \u00a0Were they in touch with the Russians? \u00a0I think those are still open questions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Brian Fallon, Mrs. Clinton’s press secretary during the election run referenced a series of “new developments . . . that call into question the legitimacy of his win.”<\/p>\n It is reasonable to conclude that, indirectly through these surrogates, Mrs. Clinton herself questions Mr. Trump’s legitimacy. \u00a0In fairness, a direct link to Mrs. Clinton is murky given that her campaign was over at the time these comments were made. \u00a0Arguably, neither Mr. Podesta nor Mr. Fallon have the authority to speak on her behalf. \u00a0We have not heard directly from Mrs. Clinton on this issue. \u00a0Nevertheless,\u00a0their\u00a0answer is “yes” to the question was the election result illegitimate.<\/p>\n A cleaner attribution runs from President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, to the President. \u00a0As Chief of Staff Mr. McDonough is a spokesman for the President. \u00a0CNN host Jake Tapper asked him whether President Obama thought Mr. Trump was legitimate. \u00a0Mr. McDonough did not answer that question. \u00a0Instead, he offered this: “The President has made very clear that he believes that [Mr. Trump] is the ‘freely elected’ president.” \u00a0It appears that President Obama’s indirect answer is also “yes” to the question was the election result illegitimate?<\/p>\n Other Democratic party notables went further. \u00a0Congressman John Lewis was blunt: “I don’t see the President-elect as a legitimate President. \u00a0I believe the Russians participated in getting this man elected. \u00a0They helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.”<\/p>\n Similarly, Congressman\u00a0Jerrold Nadler stated: “[Trump] was legally elected but the Russian weighing in on the election, the Russian attempt to hack the election, and frankly the FBI’s weighing in on the election I think makes his election illegitimate.” \u00a0Senator Diane Feinstein said that she believes Russian interference altered the outcome of the election.<\/p>\n We can think of at least two clear circumstances under which a Presidential election result is illegitimate. \u00a0Two gray areas are also described.<\/p>\n First, where the evidence is clear that the candidate himself directly or indirectly participated in conduct that in fact altered the election outcome. \u00a0For example, President Kennedy won the 1960 election with 303 electoral votes to Richard Nixon’s 219. \u00a0A total of 51 electoral votes came from Illinois and Texas. \u00a0If Mr. Nixon had won those states, he would have won the election.<\/p>\n in the immediate aftermath of President Kennedy’s election allegations quickly surfaced that JFK’s operatives helped “steal” the vote in Cook County<\/a>, Illinois. \u00a0And in Texas, which JFK won by approximately 50,000 votes,\u00a0there were widespread claims of voter fraud. \u00a0In both instances, however, there was no conclusive proof of the allegations. \u00a0If there was proof, JFK’s election would have been illegitimate.<\/p>\n Second, where the evidence is clear that independent third parties intentionally altered actual vote counts\u00a0leading to a different outcome, the election result is illegitimate. \u00a0For example, if a foreign government is able to hack into voting machines or alter voting tabulation software and thereby alter the final voting outcome. \u00a0In those instances, the election outcome would be illegitimate.<\/p>\n Now for two murkier situations. \u00a0First, consider this scenario. \u00a0There is clear evidence that material adverse information with respect to a candidate’s character or past actions was intentionally altered and widely distributed. \u00a0The opponent’s surrogates disclosed the information. \u00a0The candidate was viewed as leading the election (or the election was in doubt) prior to the distribution of the information. \u00a0 Further, the candidate is unable to satisfactorily disprove the adverse claims. \u00a0The\u00a0candidate then loses the election.<\/p>\n Would the result be seen as illegitimate? \u00a0In this case the opponent’s direct actions were improper. \u00a0The result of the election would be seen as illegitimate. \u00a0Would the result in fact be illegitimate? \u00a0Yes, because (1) the actions were taken by the opponent, and (2) the election result was widely viewed as directly impacted by those actions, even without proof that recorded votes were altered.<\/p>\n Assume the same facts with one change. \u00a0The opponent’s surrogates did not disclose the material adverse information. \u00a0Instead, independent third parties who favor the opponent disclosed the information. \u00a0Would the election result be seen as illegitimate? \u00a0Probably yes, because the information disclosed was both material and adverse. \u00a0Would the result in fact be illegitimate? \u00a0We think not. \u00a0Although bad acts occurred, they were perpetrated by independent third parties. \u00a0There was no alteration of the actual vote count.<\/p>\n Let’s take a look at the two subject matters that have drawn great interest as potential sources of illegitimacy. \u00a0Claims of hacks sponsored by the Russian government, and allegations of impropriety regarding the conduct of the FBI. \u00a0What do we know so far?<\/p>\n For the sake of this analysis we assume the worst from the facts disclosed to date. \u00a0The Russian government sponsored hacks into the servers of the Democratic National Committee (and elsewhere). \u00a0Those hacks resulted in the theft and ultimate disclosure of thousands of emails of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign director, John Podesta and others. \u00a0The contents of some of those emails reflected poorly on Mrs. Clinton.<\/p>\n Hacking by foreign governments is the norm for 21st century spy-craft. \u00a0Every developed nation does it. \u00a0We will go a step further and adopt the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community<\/a>. \u00a0We also assume that the Russian government wanted Mr. Trump to win the election.<\/p>\n We suggest that there’s nothing new or unique to the notion that an adversarial foreign government might prefer one candidate for the Presidency over another. \u00a0A foreign government that takes\u00a0active steps to create that outcome is not, in itself, enough to deligitimize the outcome. It all depends on the steps taken and with whom.<\/p>\n So let’s walk through the analysis. \u00a0To date, there is no proof, or significant inference, of a direct or tacit agreement to act as between Mr. Trump and Russia. \u00a0As a result, our first illegitimacy test is not satisfied.<\/p>\n Then we turn to the second test. \u00a0Here, the focus is squarely upon the actions actually taken by the Russians. \u00a0They hacked DNC emails. \u00a0The email contents were publicly disclosed. \u00a0Those contents were arguably politically embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton. \u00a0But the contents as disclosed are not claimed to be altered from their original form. \u00a0We equate this situation to the Pentagon Papers, as we discussed here<\/a>. \u00a0In both cases the act of revelation was illegal. \u00a0In both cases the information revealed was truthful.<\/p>\n Let’s then assume that the stolen, but truthful, disclosed information\u00a0altered voters opinions. \u00a0Enough of them switched their preference from Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Trump, causing Mr. Trump to win the election. \u00a0Would this render the the election result illegitimate? \u00a0No. \u00a0In this case, voters may their choice based solely on truths.<\/p>\n As a result, the facts as we know them do not illegitimize Mr. Trump’s election. \u00a0It might be illegitimate if the Russians (or a third party) had altered the contents of the stolen emails. \u00a0It would be illegitimate if the Russians had altered the count of the actual votes cast. \u00a0But those are not the facts. \u00a0Accordingly, the election result is legitimate, and should be respect.<\/p>\n![\"Election](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.opinionsthoughts.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/clinton-trump-300x165.jpg?resize=300%2C165\")
\n
\n
Challenging the Result of a Democratic Election – Political Hypocrisy on Display<\/h3>\n
Was the Election Result Illegitimate? – Mrs. Clinton’s\u00a0View<\/h4>\n
\n
Was the Election Result Illegitimate? – President Obama’s View (Indirectly)<\/h4>\n
Was the Election Result Illegitimate?- Other National Leaders<\/h4>\n
![\"election](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.opinionsthoughts.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/rep.-john-lewis-d-georgia-300x208.jpg?resize=300%2C208\")
When It’s Right to Claim Illegitimacy – The Tests<\/h3>\n
The Clear Cases<\/h4>\n
![\"election](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.opinionsthoughts.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/AFP_Getty-150225733-300x217.jpg?resize=300%2C217\")
The Gray Areas<\/h4>\n
The Publicly-Known Events of 2016 Do Not De-Legitimize the 2016 Presidential Election Result<\/h3>\n
Russian Government Hacking as a Source of Illegitimacy<\/h4>\n
![\"election](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.opinionsthoughts.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/france-russian-hackers-posed-as-isis-to-hack-a-french-tv-broadcaster-300x208.jpg?resize=300%2C208\")
Analysis of Russia’s Actions<\/h4>\n
Improper Conduct by the FBI as a Source of Illegitimacy<\/h4>\n
![\"Election](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.opinionsthoughts.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/comey.jpg?resize=275%2C183\")