Trump has entered the Querencia Phase of his presidency

Donna Brazile, DNC chair(at the time).

That is a separate issue, from the fact that Russia illegally interfered in the election. Whether Trump would have won, anyway, is beside the point. Federal election laws were violated, and the Russians conspired to defraud the United States with those violations.

Yes, Russia interfered in the election. They colluded with Hillary's campaign and the DNC to screw Sanders in the primary.

The russians outed hillary by hacking into the democratic campaign emails...that hurt her and didn't help her...sorry jody...

you are a liar, Jody..........prove it

Yes, Russia interfered in the election. They colluded with Hillary's campaign and the DNC to screw Sanders in the primary.

When it was revealed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by hacking into the email system of the Democratic National Committee and releasing its emails, international lawyers were divided over whether the cyber-attack violated international law. President Obama seemingly went out of his way to describe the attack as a mere violation of “established international norms of behavior,” though some international lawyers were more willing to describe the cyber-attack as a violation of international law. However, identifying the exact legal norm that was contravened turns out to be harder than it might otherwise appear. To the layperson, the Russian hacking constituted an impermissible (and perhaps shocking) interference in the American political process—an intervention that non-lawyers would not hesitate to label a “violation of sovereignty” as that term is used in political or diplomatic discourse.

The problem arises when one attempts to translate that common-sense intuition into legal discourse. At that point, the translation effort breaks down for a variety of reasons. The genesis of the difficulty is that none of the standard rubrics for understanding illegal interventions clearly and unambiguously applies to the facts in question. That being said, it would be a mistake to hastily reject our common-sense intuitions about the impropriety of Russian hacking during the election. The lack of fit with the doctrinal requirements for an illegal intervention against another state’s sovereignty is simply an indication that the notions of “sovereignty” and “intervention”—though mainstays of contemporary public international law doctrine—are poorly suited to analyzing the legality of the conduct in this case. A far better rubric for analyzing the behavior is the notion of self-determination, a legal concept that captures the right of a people to decide, for themselves, both their political arrangements and their future destiny.

Try google sometime

HOW did he do that?

Look Brosephus, its obvious you haven't been paying attention or have the slightest Canucking idea wtf is going on so maybe you can spend some time getting up to speed on what the relevant Law is instead of us having to hold your hand?

Or just be a dumbass holding opinions without any real knowledge like most conservatives I know?

If you ask again I will mock you a second time....

Stealing information from private computers and from political opponents is a crime. Conspiring and colluding with foreign governments to commit crimes is a crime.

Yes, Russia interfered in the election. They colluded with Hillary's campaign and the DNC to screw Sanders in the primary.

That is a separate issue, from the fact that Russia illegally interfered in the election

obtuse much?