Hillary has the right and almost an obligation to say Trump didn't win.

[BzaDem]

64. I'm not sure there would be any cause of action.

There would have to be a statute that explicitly forbids the government from taking into account information it legally received that was obtained illegally by its original source. In the absence of such a statute, general arguments about "fraud" would go nowhere.

Another example would be in the police context. Let's say the police receive information obtained from a private party, where the private party did not obtain the information in accordance with the 4th amendment. That information would be allowed in court, unless the private party was acting as an agent of the police (doing the police's bidding essentially).

Your argument about taking it to the court of public opinion is interesting. I'm not sure it would have much of an effect in either case. Assuming the information was true, would the public really care where the info came from? I doubt it (even if they should). They might care that the other company that won the contract would be more favorable to Russia, but that would be true with or without the hack.

It makes even less sense in the election context. In the election context, the court of public opinion already rendered their verdict. Russia's illegal behavior was mentioned in all three debates and hundreds of times a day in the media. Yet a decisive number of people didn't care. I don't see how telling them that they should have cared would be any more effective than it was the first time.