Facebook: Accounts from Russia bought ads during US campaign
Facebook says it has identified nearly 500 fake accounts, probably run from Russia, that it says spent about $100,000 on ads that amplified politically divisive issues during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos says in a statement Wednesday the company discovered the accounts during a review of ad buys. That review was spurred by a broader investigation into Russian interference in the election. Stamos says the 470 fake accounts and pages didn’t specifically reference the election, a candidate or voting. But he says the 3,000 ads promoted political messages on a range of issues from gun rights to race issues. The ads were purchased between June 2015 and May 2017. Facebook says it shared its findings with federal authorities. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Hillary Clinton takes blame in upcoming book but responds to critics
Hillary Clinton takes the blame for her 2016 presidential defeat in her upcoming book but offers choice words for President Donald Trump, her campaign rivals and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Clinton writes in “What Happened” that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders caused “lasting damage” to her presidential campaign and pushes back against the notion raised by Vice President Joe Biden that she didn’t campaign forcefully enough for middle class voters. “I go back over my own shortcomings and the mistakes we made. I take responsibility for all of them. You can blame the data, blame the message, blame anything you want – but I was the candidate,” she writes. “It was my campaign. Those were my decisions.” CNN reported Wednesday that it purchased a copy of the book in Jacksonville, Florida ahead of its Sept. 12 release date. In the book, Clinton says she miscalculated “how quickly the ground was shifting under all our feet” and tried to run a traditional campaign “while Trump was running a reality TV show that expertly and relentlessly stoked Americans’ anger and resentment.” During the primary, Clinton writes that advisers often told her not to fight back against Sanders’ criticism for fear of alienating his supporters. She says “his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign.” As the campaign moved along, she says then-FBI Director James Comey‘s probe into her private email server, including his late-October decision to issue a letter to Congress on the investigation, disrupted the image of her as a strong leader. Clinton questions whether a stronger response from President Barack Obama to reports of Russian meddling in the election might have made a difference. And she writes with regret that she never got the chance to confront Putin in person. “There’s nothing I was looking forward to more than showing Putin that his efforts to influence our election and install a friendly puppet had failed,” she writes. “I know he must be enjoying everything that’s happened instead. But he hasn’t had the last laugh yet.” Clinton’s previous books include her 2003 memoir, “Living History,” published while she was a U.S. senator from New York, and 2014’s “Hard Choices,” her account of her time as secretary of state. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Chris Christie says getting Russian opposition research ‘probably’ illegal
Republican Gov. Chris Christie on Monday addressed Donald Trump Jr.’s 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney, saying it’s “probably against the law” to get opposition research for his father’s presidential campaign from a foreign country. But Christie, a friend and adviser to President Donald Trump, also said that it’s too early be “jumping to conclusions” and that there’s no evidence the campaign obtained such research. “I think, quite frankly, it’s probably against the law in addition to being inappropriate,” Christie said. “I think the thing that bothers me the most is that we seem to have a frenzy of people jumping to conclusions.” Christie, a former U.S. attorney, spoke Monday at an unrelated event in his first public appearance since he ended a three-day government shutdown earlier this month. He was widely criticized after an NJ.com photographer snapped photos of him on a state beach closed to the public during the shutdown. He traveled to Monday’s news conference by state helicopter from another stay at Island Beach State Park. Christie’s comments come a day after the Republican president’s attorney insisted there was nothing illegal in the meeting that Trump’s eldest son attended during last year’s presidential campaign. The president’s attorney, Jay Sekulow, defended Trump and his son in a series of appearances Sunday on five television networks. “Nothing in that meeting that would have taken place, even if it was about the topic of an opposition research paper from a Russian lawyer, is illegal or a violation of the law,” Sekulow said. He said the president did not attend the meeting and was not aware of it. The president himself tweeted Monday: “Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That’s politics!” Trump Jr. initially said the June 2016 meeting was about a Russian adoption program. Then The New York Times reported the meeting was actually to hear information about his father’s opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton. Finally, under pressure from The Times, which had obtained email correspondence, Trump Jr. was compelled to release emails that revealed he had told an associate that he would “love” Russia’s help in obtaining incriminating information about Clinton. Christie served as campaign transition chairman and now leads an anti-opioid commission for the White House. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Al Franken: ‘Everything points to’ collusion with Donald Trump, Russia
A conversation between two comedians turned serious late Tuesday when U.S. Sen. Al Franken said “everything points to” collusion between President Donald Trump‘s campaign and the Russians. The Minnesota Democrat did not cite any evidence, noting a special counsel has been appointed to lead an FBI probe into the Republican administration’s ties to Russia. But Franken shared his “feeling” when pressed by late-night comedy legend David Letterman during joint appearance in New York City. “My feeling is that there was some cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians. I think everything points to that,” Franken told Letterman, who moderated a discussion designed to highlight the release of Franken’s new memoir. Franken added, “They just haven’t been acting like people who have nothing to hide.” The Associated Press reported earlier in the day that Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, rejected a House intelligence committee request for information, while former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn will provide documents to the Senate intelligence committee as part of its probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Franken, a founding writer on “Saturday Night Live,” has emerged as a liberal hero of sorts during his two terms in the Senate. He insisted in recent days that he will not run for president in 2020, however. “I see myself running for re-election in 2020,” he told Letterman of his plans to seek a third Senate term. Letterman and Franken ignored comedian Kathy Griffin‘s photo shoot in which she’s pictured holding what looks like Trump’s severed head. While Griffin apologized for the image, the Republican National Committee singled out Franken for accepting political contributions exceeding $3,000 from Griffin in recent years. The two were scheduled to appear together at an event in California in the coming weeks. Franken spokesman Michael Dale-Stein did not say whether Franken still planned to attend the event, but he condemned Griffin’s photo. The senator, Dale-Stein said, “believes this image was inappropriate and not the kind of thing that should be part of our national discourse.” Back in New York, the comedians had the crowd roaring. In classic deadpan style, Letterman drew a huge laugh when he declared, “I have begun to lose confidence in the Trump administration.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Michelle Obama tells Oprah Winfrey that 2016 election ‘was painful’
First lady Michelle Obama tells Oprah Winfrey that this past election was “painful.” Mrs. Obama sat down with Winfrey at the White House for an hourlong special that was broadcast Monday on CBS. On the topic of the recent campaign she said: “This past election was challenging for me as a citizen to watch and experience. It was painful.” Still, Mrs. Obama says she and the president are supporting President-elect Donald Trump‘s transition because “it is important for the health of this nation that we support the commander-in-chief.” She says the same thing wasn’t done for her husband, but that “this is what’s best for the country.” As for her own political future, Mrs. Obama says she won’t run for public office. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump cruises to Electoral College victory despite protests
There were many protesters but few faithless electors as Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote Monday – ensuring he will become America’s 45th president. An effort by anti-Trump forces to persuade Republican electors to abandon the president-elect came to practically nothing and the process unfolded largely according to its traditions. Trump’s polarizing victory Nov. 8 and the fact Democrat Hillary Clinton had won the national popular vote had stirred an intense lobbying effort, but to no avail. “We did it!” Trump tweeted Monday evening. “Thank you to all of my great supporters, we just officially won the election (despite all of the distorted and inaccurate media).” Even one of Trump’s fiercest Republican rivals, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, said it was time to get behind the president-elect. “We want unity, we want love,” Kasich said as Ohio’s electors voted to back Trump at a statehouse ceremony. Kasich refused to endorse or even vote for Trump in the election. With Hawaii still to vote, Trump had 304 votes and Clinton had 224. It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency. Texas put Trump over the top, despite two Republican electors casting protest votes. Befitting an election filled with acrimony, thousands of protesters converged on state capitols across the country Monday, urging Republican electors to abandon their party’s winning candidate. More than 200 demonstrators braved freezing temperatures at Pennsylvania’s capitol, chanting, “No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA!” and “No treason, no Trump!” In Madison, Wisconsin, protesters shouted, cried and sang “Silent Night.” In Augusta, Maine, they banged on drums and held signs that said, “Don’t let Putin Pick Our President,” referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Despite the noise outside state Capitols, inside, the voting went pretty much as planned. In Nashville, Tennessee, one audience member tried to read out some Scripture before the ballots were cast, but was told he could not speak. “We certainly appreciate the Scripture,” State Election Coordinator Mark Goins said from the podium. “The answer is no.” With all Republican states reporting, Trump lost only the two electors in Texas. One voted for Kasich, the Ohio governor; the other voted for former Texas Rep. Ron Paul. Clinton lost four electors in Washington state – three voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell and one voted for Native American tribal leader Faith Spotted Eagle. Several Democratic electors in other states tried to vote for protest candidates but they either changed their votes to Clinton or were replaced. The Electoral College has 538 members, with the number allocated to each state based on how many representatives it has in the House plus one for each senator. The District of Columbia gets three, despite the fact that the home to Congress has no vote in Congress. Republican electors were deluged with emails, phone calls and letters urging them not to support Trump. Many of the emails are part of coordinated campaigns. In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, elector Charlie Buckels reached out to Trump’s opponents after the New York businessman got all of the state’s eight votes. “For those of you who wished it had gone another way, I thank you for being here,” said Buckels, the state GOP finance chairman. “I thank you for your passion for our country.” There is no constitutional provision or federal law that requires electors to vote for the candidate who won their state – though some states require their electors to vote for the winning candidate. Those laws, however, are rarely tested. More than 99 percent of electors through U.S. history have voted for the candidate who won their state. Of those who refused, none has ever been prosecuted, according to the National Archives. Some Democrats have argued that the Electoral College is undemocratic because it gives more weight to less populated states. That is how Clinton, who got more than 2.8 million more votes nationwide, lost the election to Trump. Some have also tried to dissuade Trump voters by arguing that he is unsuited to the job. Others cite the CIA’s assessment that Russia engaged in computer hacking to sway the election in favor of the Republican. “When the founders of our country created (the Electoral College) 200-plus years ago, they didn’t have confidence in the average white man who had property, because that’s who got to vote,” said Shawn Terris, a Democratic elector from Ventura, California. “It just seems so undemocratic to me that people other than the voters get to choose who leads the country.” A joint session of Congress is scheduled for Jan. 6 to certify the results of the Electoral College vote, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding as president of the Senate. Once the result is certified, the winner – almost certainly Trump – will be sworn in on Jan. 20. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
All 9 Alabama electors cast their votes for Donald Trump
Several dozen protesters took to the steps of the state Capitol on Monday seeking to persuade Alabama’s presidential electors to cast ballots for someone other than Donald Trump. Over the last few weeks, electors in Alabama and other states have been inundated with calls, emails and letter urging them to reject Trump. But the protests were mostly symbolic in the Yellowhammer State as Trump overwhelmingly delivered the state during the general election last month, having received 1.3 million votes — roughly 62 percent of the vote. Meanwhile Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton only took home 34 percent of the vote, with remaining votes divided between write-in candidates, Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein. “The people of Alabama put their trust in these electors to represent the will of the people and the voice of the people of this great state in the electoral process,” Gov. Robert Bentley said before the electors cast their votes. And during an elaborate ceremony within the Montgomery-capitol, all nine of the electors voted for Trump. “Let the record show that the president-elect received more votes for the presidency than any candidate in the history of Alabama,” said Secretary of State John Merrill, who presided over the 30-minute ceremony before later certifying the vote. Watch the full electoral ceremony below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6UyVRw1U3I
The electoral voters speak, and they’re not out for a revolt
Hounded to abandon Donald Trump, Republican electors appear to be in no mood for an insurrection in the presidential campaign’s last voting ritual. This most untraditional of elections is on course to produce a traditional outcome Monday – an Electoral College ticket to the White House for the president-elect. Whether they like Trump or not, and some surely don’t, scores of the Republicans chosen to cast votes in the state-capital meetings told AP they feel bound by history, duty, party loyalty or the law to rubber-stamp their state’s results and make him president. Appeals numbering in the tens of thousands – drowning inboxes, ringing cell phones, stuffing home and office mailboxes with actual handwritten letters – have not swayed them. The Associated Press tried to reach all 538 electors and interviewed more than 330 of them, finding widespread Democratic aggravation with the electoral process but little expectation that the hustle of anti-Trump maneuvering can derail him. For that to happen, Republican-appointed electors would have to stage an unprecedented defection and Democrats would need to buck tradition, too, by peeling away from Hillary Clinton and swinging behind a consensus candidate in sufficient numbers. Still, people going to the typically ho-hum electoral gatherings have been drawn into the rough and tumble of campaign-season politics. Republicans are being beseeched to revolt in a torrent of lobbying, centered on the argument that Clinton won the popular vote and Trump is unsuited to the presidency. Most of it is falling on deaf ears, but it has also led to some acquaintances being made across the great political divide. “Let me give you the total as of right now: 48,324 emails about my role as an elector,” said Brian Westrate, a small-business owner and GOP district chairman in Fall Creek, Wisconsin. “I have a Twitter debate with a former porn star from California asking me to change my vote. It’s been fascinating.” Similarly deluged, Republican elector Hector Maldonado, a Missouri National Guardsman, has taken the time to console one correspondent, a single mother and Air Force veteran who is beside herself with worry about what a Trump presidency will mean. “Everything’s going to be OK,” he said he told her. “I know you’re scared, but don’t worry. Everything’s going to be OK. And I know that it will be.” Maldonado, a Mexican immigrant and medical-equipment seller in Sullivan, backed Ted Cruz in the primaries but will cast his vote for Trump with conviction. “I took an oath once to become a U.S. citizen,” he said, “and on Aug. 14, 1995, that was the first oath that I’ve taken to support the U.S. Constitution. A year later I took the oath again, to support the duties of being an officer in the U.S. Army. This was the third oath that I’ve taken to execute what I promised to do.” Even a leader of the anti-Trump effort, Bret Chiafalo of Everett, Washington, calls it a “losing bet” – but one he says the republic’s founders would want him to make. “I believe that Donald Trump is a unique danger to our country and the Founding Fathers put the Electoral College in place to, among other things, stop that from happening,” said Chiafalo, 38, an Xbox network engineer who backed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. It takes 270 electoral votes to make a president. Despite losing the national popular vote, Trump won enough states to total 306 electoral votes. He would need to see three dozen fall away for him to lose his majority. Only one Republican elector told AP he won’t vote for Trump. Over the sweep of history, so-called faithless electors – those who vote for someone other than their state’s popular-vote winner – have been exceptionally rare. Nashville attorney Tom Lawless, who chose Marco Rubio in the primaries, described his vow to cast his electoral vote for Trump in blunt terms. “Hell will freeze and we will be skating on the lava before I change,” he said. “He won the state and I’ve pledged and gave my word that that’s what I would do. And I won’t break it.” Nor will Jim Skaggs, 78, a developer from Bowling Green, Kentucky, despite deep concern about Trump. “His personality worries me,” Skaggs said. “He is not open-minded.” Skaggs knew Trump’s father through the construction business, met the son in his 20s, and “I wasn’t impressed.” “I hope he is far better than I think he is,” Skaggs said. Even so, “I fully intend to vote for Donald Trump,” he said. “I think it’s a duty.” State law and practices vary for electors, but even in states where electors don’t take an oath to vote a certain way or don’t face legal ramifications for stepping out of line, the heavy expectation is for them to ratify the results. As much as they don’t want Trump in office, some Democrats are as reluctant as Republicans to go rogue. “We lost the election,” said John Padilla of Albuquerque, New Mexico, a Democratic ward chairman. “That’s how elections are and you shake hands with your opponent and you get on with what you have to do and support your candidate.” Yet Democratic electors, stung by losing an election to a Republican who trails Clinton by more than 2.6 million votes nationwide, spoke strongly in the interviews in favor of overhauling or throwing out the electoral system. Republican electors generally supported it, reasoning that it provides a counterweight to political dominance by coastal states with huge (and largely Democratic) populations, like California and New York. Chiafalo is a co-founder of the Hamilton Electors, a group formed to steer other electors from both parties to a third candidate. “We’ve stated from Day 1 this is a long shot, this is a Hail Mary,” he said. But if the effort fails, it won’t be from lack of trying. Most of the pleas to reject Trump are coordinated, automated, professionally generated and, for those reasons, none too persuasive. “We got a stack of letters
Electoral College has had tie votes, hanging chads, chaos
The Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College to ensure a well-informed, geographically diverse group of electors would choose the nation’s presidents. That sounds rational – and sometimes it even works. But the history of the Electoral College also includes tales of tie votes, hanging chads, conniving politicians and intrigue. A look at four elections when controversy reigned: 1800: THE TIE It’s the last thing you want in an election: a tie. The framers of the Constitution didn’t quite think that through when they failed to provide for separate ballots for president and vice president. Under the original Electoral College system, the top vote-getter was to become president and the runner-up would become vice president. In the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran in tandem, with Jefferson the presumed head of the ticket. Each got 73 votes in the Electoral College. The tie threw the election to the House and set off months of maneuvering and mischief. It took the House – then with members from 16 states – 36 ballots over seven days in 1801 to elect Jefferson president and Burr his vice president. To avoid a repeat, the 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804, specifying that electors would vote separately for president and vice president. The 1800 election marked the first peaceful transfer of power between political parties in U.S. history. 1824: HOUSE CALL – AGAIN Andrew Jackson came out of the 1824 election with the most popular and electoral votes after a four-way campaign. But Jackson’s 99 electoral votes were well shy of the 131 then necessary to become president. With that, the election went to the House. House Speaker William Clay, the fourth-place finisher, was eliminated because the Constitution limits the choice to the top three candidates. With no rules for the House balloting, the chamber decided that each state’s vote should reflect the preference of the majority of its congressmen. Deal-making, backroom lobbying and bitter recriminations quickly commenced. Clay, out of the running, was determined to serve as kingmaker, and threw his support to John Quincy Adams, who had finished second. Rumors swirled that Clay had been promised the State Department in return. In the end, the deciding ballot came down to New York’s Stephen Van Rensselaer, who voted for John Quincy Adams on the first ballot and sent him to the White House. Rensselaer said he’d noticed a ballot for Adams on the floor when he bowed his head to pray, and took it as a sign from heaven, according to an account by Norman Ornstein in the book “After the People Vote.” Clay was later named secretary of State. Jackson was incensed, writing to friends, “Was there ever such a barefaced corruption in any country before?” Four years later, Jackson got his revenge when he defeated Adams. 1876: ‘HIS FRAUDULENCY’ Anyone remember Samuel Tilden? In 1876, he thought he’d been elected president. Tilden, the Democratic governor of New York, won the popular vote that year but Ohio Gov. Rutherford B. Hayes claimed the presidency based on electoral votes. At first it looked like Tilden had things sewn up: He led 184 to 165 in electoral votes with 20 votes outstanding and 185 required to win. Hayes went to bed on election night thinking he’d lost. But Republican Party leaders put pressure on electors in the remaining states, and South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana each sent conflicting electoral returns to Washington. Months of controversy ensued, with charges of bribery, forgery and ballot-box stuffing on both sides. President Ulysses Grant dispatched troops to keep the peace as votes were tabulated. It took a special bipartisan electoral commission to settle matters, with Hayes ultimately elected by a margin of one electoral vote. Hayes’ mandate was so narrow that he was called “His Fraudulency.” He kept the promise he made in his inaugural address to serve only one term. Tilden urged his supporters to recognize Hayes as the legitimate president but “nonetheless believed until his death that he had been duly elected president,” according to Ornstein’s account. To avoid a rerun of that mess, Congress passed legislation giving states authority to determine the validity of their electors. In the future, a majority of both houses of Congress would be required to reject electoral votes. 2000: 537 VOTES Vice President Al Gore won the national popular vote by more than a half-million ballots over George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential contest, but was defeated in the Electoral College after the Supreme Court stopped a hotly debated recount in Florida. Bush claimed 271 electoral votes – just one vote more than needed to prevail – after he was certified as the winner in Florida by a scant 537 votes. It took until Dec. 12, more than five weeks after Election Day, to reach that conclusion. The Supreme Court said the Florida recount violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because counties were allowed to set their own standards for determining whether to count a vote. As the laborious recount of punch-card ballots played out, “pregnant chad” entered the political lexicon. The punch cards – and their chads – have since been banned in Florida. It was all a fresh reminder of the Founding Fathers’ complicated plan for picking presidents. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
The Electoral College class of 2016
The sharp divisions left by last month’s presidential election have cast more attention than usual on the Electoral College. The Associated Press attempted to talk to all 538 electors to get an idea of the pressure they are under, what they think about their Constitutional duty and what they make of longshot efforts to derail Donald Trump‘s ascension to the White House when they meet Monday. Here’s a sampling: Republican Rex Teter, 59, a music teacher and preacher in Pasadena, Texas, received about 35,000 emails and 200 letters urging him not to support Trump. It took him several hours to delete them the day after Thanksgiving. A Marco Rubio supporter in the primaries, he is solidly for Trump. “Some have been very personal letters. Some threatening. One was very funny. They view President-elect Trump as a threat so it’s personal for them, and I can empathize. But I’m not changing my vote as an elector.” “When I decided to run for elector, that’s when I decided to vote for Trump. I could not be an elector and not vote for Trump. … No matter of arm-twisting or any amount of money would get me to change. I was also bound by a higher law, because I promised but also because I made a higher pledge before God.” — Democrat Raymond Cordova, 77, of Garden Grove, California, thinks the Electoral College is an anachronism, but electors have an obligation to carry on the tradition of ratifying their state’s popular vote. In the primaries, he voted for Bernie Sanders. “During the time of (James) Madison I think they were right on target with it. We have the means, with sophisticated communication, all these things today, we don’t need the Electoral College. But it will never change, it will always be there.” “I honestly believe if Bernie Sanders had been the nominee, we’d have had a whole different story. But I’m not going to cry over spilled milk, I’m going to pick up my marbles and start all over again.” — Kirk Shook, 32, is an Athens, Georgia, teacher and secretary of the state GOP, who says he’s sent more than 47,800 emails about his duty as an elector to his spam folder. “Even if I could have been swayed a little bit, this has caused me to be even firmer in my resolve if just to aggravate them. It’s been a complete thorn in my side. They’re from all over the country.” “On the whole, the American people knew who they voted for. Nothing going to come out about Donald Trump, I think, that would sway the people who voted for him to change their vote or change electors’ decision.” — Democrat David Mulinix, 66, of Kaneohe, Hawaii, is exasperated with the Democratic National Committee, the Electoral College system and the fact he can do little except cast his electoral vote for Hillary Clinton according to the rules. “Now we have Donald Trump because the DNC manipulated the system to put in the worst candidate possible that the people of the United States did not want. So now we’re stuck with Trump. So I’m not sure what else to do about that. I wish there’d be some way to make a statement saying you guys really messed up … and I just don’t know exactly how to do that.” “If there was some way to change the election, then I’d be on the phone hot and heavy calling people.” “We need to get rid of this dumb thing. I really am not happy about being an elector or that this thing exists. This is really terrible. We’re supposed to have a democracy… Right now, if all the electors got together and held a conference, and said you know what, we’re going to vote for like Donald Duck, they can just do that.” — Alberto Gutier, 77, director of the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety and the state GOP’s sergeant-at-arms, says he’s been swamped with emails, several dozen calls to his personal cellphone “and a stack of letters a foot high” about his service as a Republican elector. These are largely pleas for him to back someone other than Trump. “Forty-seven thousand, five hundred emails, that’s ridiculous, OK? And hundreds and hundreds of letters. Do you have any idea, for those stamps, how many people could have been fed for the holidays?” — Sam Shapiro, 89, of Winslow, Maine, was treasurer of the state Democratic Party for 13 years and treasurer of the state as well. He says the country should emulate Maine and Nebraska by splitting their electoral votes, moving away from a winner-take-all system. But he says the people have spoken, and he will cast his electoral vote for Clinton and not be part of any effort to deny Trump the presidency. “Trump has won. I firmly support our president-elect. All of this turmoil of trying to get people to switch their votes. First of all it won’t happen. Second of all, it puts us in a bad light.” “I served in the military and took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Trump is going to be the president, and I’ll support him, even if means being in opposition to Democrats who’re trying to make a change.” — John Harper, 73, is a former Rowlett, Texas, mayor, and a Republican elector who weighed the consequences of casting his electoral vote for someone other than his state’s presidential election winner, Donald Trump. “I struggled with that one. I want to be always morally straight, kind of a Boy Scout, you know? I’m a retired military officer. Taking an oath means a lot. When you take an oath you live up for it. I made a promise. Lacking some strong, strong evidence, I think everyone is obligated to follow through what they promise.” — Democrat Stephanie A. Miner, 46, mayor of Syracuse, New York, is taking a hard look at the system in light of the fact that Clinton won about
Top GOP leader: Senate to probe reports of Russia hacking
The top Senate Republican said Monday that Congress will investigate a CIA assessment that Russia interfered in the November election on behalf of Donald Trump, an intelligence conclusion that the incoming commander in chief has called “ridiculous.” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters that an inquiry would be conducted by the Senate intelligence panel. Two key Senate Republicans – John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading Trump critic – have joined with two Democrats in seeking a bipartisan investigation into the Kremlin’s activities during the election. “Obviously any foreign breach of our cybersecurity measures is disturbing, and I strongly condemn any such efforts,” McConnell said. Unlike Trump, who has expressed admiration for Russian leader Vladimir Putin, McConnell said flatly, “The Russians are not our friends.” The CIA recently concluded with “high confidence” that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election on behalf of Trump, raising red flags among lawmakers concerned about the sanctity of the U.S. voting system and potentially straining relations at the start of Trump’s administration. Trump said Sunday the recent CIA assertion that Russian hacking had sought to help his candidacy was “ridiculous,” and he praised ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who has emerged as the leading contender to lead the State Department. Russia expects to figure prominently at the start of a week in which Trump is expected to name more members of his Cabinet, which also has vacancies in the departments of Energy, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs. Trump’s transition team announced Monday that his choice to head the Department of Homeland Security is, as expected, Gen. John Kelly. Kelly is a former commander of U.S. Southern Command with “unique insight into some of the challenges the United States faces at its southern border,” the announcement said. “It’s a matter of concern to me that he has such a close personal relationship with Vladimir Putin,” McCain said of Tillerson. “And obviously they’ve done enormous deals together.” In an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation,” McCain said, “That would color his approach to Vladimir Putin and the Russian threat.” Russia expects to figure prominently at the start of a week in which Trump is expected to name more members of his Cabinet, which also has vacancies in the departments of Energy, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs. During his campaign, Trump weathered turbulent relations with fellow Republicans but has since forged a more united front with GOP lawmakers since his November victory over Hillary Clinton. In a wide-ranging interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Trump dismissed those concerns as little more than partisan griping. “I think the Democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country. And frankly, I think they’re putting it out. And it’s ridiculous,” Trump said. The incoming president said he did not necessarily oppose calls from President Barack Obama for an inquiry into the 2016 campaign hacking but said it should not be solely focused on a single culprit. “If you’re gonna to do that, I think you should not just say ‘Russia.’ You should say other countries also, and maybe other individuals,” he said. The White House has said the probe would focus on any breaches by other countries along with hacking committed in previous elections. Trump’s decision-making on whom to select for secretary of state has stretched out over several weeks. He has been considering former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a one-time vocal Trump critic, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, who leads the Foreign Relations Committee, and Tillerson, the oil industry executive who met twice with Trump during the past week. In the television interview, Trump pointed to Tillerson’s deep relations with Moscow as a selling point. As ExxonMobil’s head, he maintained close ties with Russia and was awarded by Putin with the Order of Friendship in 2013, an honor for a foreign citizen. “A great advantage is he knows many of the players, and he knows them well. He does massive deals in Russia. He does massive deals for the company,” Trump said, while also citing Corker and Romney. “These are all very different types of people,” he said. “But when you ask me about Rex, I mean, he’s a world-class player. There’s no question about it.” By Sunday afternoon, Tillerson had still not been formally offered the job, according to a person with knowledge of the process who spoke on condition of anonymity. Democrats have warned that plucking Tillerson for State would put the leader of the world’s largest oil company in a pivotal role on issues like climate change and the future of the Keystone XL pipeline. They also question whether he would apply diplomatic pressure on Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said the developments “raise serious questions about whether the incoming administration will adequately stand up to Russia’s aggression.” The prospect of Tillerson also received a cool reception from some Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which would consider his nomination. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who unsuccessfully challenged Trump for the GOP nomination, wrote on Twitter, “Being a ‘friend of Vladimir’ is not an attribute I am hoping for from a (hashtag)SecretaryOfState.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
US judge rejects Green Party’s Pennsylvania recount case
A federal judge on Monday issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request to recount paper ballots in Pennsylvania’s presidential election, won by Republican Donald Trump, and scan some counties’ election systems for signs of hacking. In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party’s lawsuit, which had been opposed by Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office. Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election “borders on the irrational” while granting the Green Party’s recount bid could “ensure that that no Pennsylvania vote counts” given Tuesday’s federal deadline to certify the vote for the Electoral College, Diamond wrote. “Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any ‘hack’ occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania’s voting system was not in any way compromised,” Diamond wrote. He also said the lawsuit suffered from a lack of standing, potentially the lack of federal jurisdiction and an “unexplained, highly prejudicial” wait before filing last week’s lawsuit. The decision was the Green Party’s latest roadblock in Pennsylvania after hitting numerous walls in county and state courts. Green Party-backed lawyers argue that it was possible that computer hackers changed the election outcome and that Pennsylvania’s heavy use of paperless machines makes it a prime target. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein also contended that Pennsylvania has erected unconstitutional barriers to voters seeking a recount. It is part of a broader effort by Stein to recount votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump won all three states narrowly over Democrat Hillary Clinton, while Stein captured about 1 percent of the vote, or less, in all three states. In Pennsylvania, Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by about 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast. A federal judge halted Michigan’s recount last week after three days. The Wisconsin recount was expected to conclude Monday. With about 95 percent of the votes recounted as of Sunday, Clinton had gained 25 votes on Trump, but still trailed by about 22,000. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
