NSA has provided DOJ evidence that Russians did effectively fix "counting" of votes in key districts

[kpete]

The NSA has provided the DOJ evidence that Russians did effectively fix "counting" of votes in key districts.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I can't vouch for this source, but the thread is interesting...
kp

[dalton99a]

1. Kick.

[sharedvalues]

2. Why did Comey flatly deny it then?

A priori I think it's plausible the Russians altered actual vote totals.
But Comey's testimony was clear.

[rzemanfl]

3. He was fired over a month ago. Could that be why? n/t

[sharedvalues]

4. Possible, yes. Relevant tweets below

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Sunlei]

7. all Comey can report on are the attempts to hack they caught and stopped. 100% FBI stopped those.

[tinrobot]

15. Well, the report is from the NSA, not the FBI

Maybe the data hadn't reached him yet...

[sharedvalues]

17. Schindler has NSA sources and supports Comey's statement.

see tweets above

[Demsrule86]

31. He didn't deny it. He said he had seen no evidence...I heard a silent 'yet'.

Trump knows...he colluded. They set this up. This is the 'there' he is afraid of. I have to say I am shocked...I kind of thought this could be the case...because the numbers out of key states were nuts...I am a math person...now what? The GOP gets a stolen election?

[sharedvalues]

34. He denied it. He could have qualified. He didn't.

In other responses Comey qualified his statements or said he couldn't testify in open session. If he had any suspicion vote totals were changed he had ample opportunity to say "As of the time I was fired I had seen no evidence."


It's better for the Russians to change voter registration and hack voters opinions through the media than to change votes. Because once you change votes you open up the election to nullification or redo. It is unlikely HRC would be put into office for voter registration hacks even though they have the same effect as hacks that change votes.

[Demsrule86]

35. He said he saw no evidence...and from what I can tell this might be a new thing.

[Sunlei]

5. I doubt very much NSA 'caught' every single hack, or mail-in? vote fraud of our elections.

[Cha]

6. Well Well Well.. The Dems weren't doing so bad

after all.

Bookmarked.. thanks kpete

[pirateshipdude]

8. +1. eom

[mercuryblues]

9. They weren't

there is no way every single poll was that far off from the final vote. I have said this often. You will never convince me that Michigan went republiklan after how badly they fucked up the state. Then refused emergency funding for Flint, until they were shamed into it.

No way.

[mythology]

12. This utterly incorrect talking point needs to stop

The final national polls were as accurate as in 2012, it's just that the polling error went in favor of Republicans this time. It helps to actually know the facts before diving headlong into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

On average, the polls have been off by 2 percentage points, whether because the race moved in the final days or because the polls were simply wrong. In many elections, the race isn’t so close, the leader in the polls goes on to win and few people notice the difference between the final polling and election margin. But when the election is close, a few percentage points can matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/how-much-did-polls-miss-the-mark-on-trump-and-why/

Clinton won the national popular vote by two percentage points according to certified vote tallies compiled by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. Most individual surveys found Clinton holding a small single-digit edge over Trump, averaging to a three-point margin. Looking across individual national polls, the average difference from the final Clinton-Trump vote margin is 2.2 percentage points, much smaller than the level of error apparent when they were compared to preliminary vote results (3.4 points).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/

But, more often, state polls and the forecasts based on them miss in the same direction. That’s a more systematic polling error, indicating that pollsters were struggling with the same challenges no matter where they were polling or their particular methodology. That also shows up in the plentiful national polls, which we use to adjust our state polls.

Errors of all of those types added up to Tuesday’s result. Individual polls were wrong. Aggregated, they missed in individual states, including in many swing states. National polls were off in the same direction: Polls overstated Clinton’s lead over Trump. And her true lead wasn’t enough to overcome her weak position in the Electoral College.

While the errors were nationwide, they were spread unevenly. The more whites without college degrees were in a state, the more Trump outperformed his FiveThirtyEight polls-only adjusted polling average,1 suggesting the polls underestimated his support with that group. And the bigger the lead we forecast for Trump, the more he outperformed his polls.2 In the average state won by Trump, the polls missed by an average of 7.4 percentage points (in either direction); in Clinton states, they missed by an average of 3.7 points. It’s typical for polls to miss in states that aren’t close, though. The most important concentration of polling errors was regional: Polls understated Trump’s margin by 4 points or more in a group of Midwestern states that he was expected to mostly lose but mostly won: Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

[sharedvalues]

18. Moreover white nationalists were asked to lie to pollsters

Asking voters to lie to pollsters will cause the polls to be wrong.

[we can do it]

10. Wish I could rec this.

[ProudLib72]

11. There will be a repeat next week in Georgia. nt

[YCHDT]

13. xactly !!! there's no rational reason why any American should believe our elections are credible not

... because of anything the Russians have done but mostly because reThugs are not taking the warnings seriously at all given today's testimony by the countries AG !!!

[groundloop]

14. There IS evidence Russia hacked voter rolls in some states... which could have altered votes

If Russian hackers altered voter rolls in a way that removed eligible DEMOCRATIC voters in some key precincts that would be every bit as effective as altering the vote. All they'd have had to do is alter the total by a few percentage points. Someone shows up to vote, is told they're not eligible to vote because they're not on the list, and just say 'screw it' and go home instead of fighting for their vote to be counted.... IMO very plausible.

[Lee-Lee]

28. You don't thing that would be noticed?

A few percentage points in a state means many thousands of voters.

With all the attention given to vote suppression and the many watchdog groups we have tracking this issue do you not think if thousands ofmoroeorly registered voters in a state were suddenly taken off the rolls that we wouldn't notice?

Of course we would. Just look at the primary in NYC for example (not done by Russians). People damm sure notice when that happens.

[BarbD]

16. Russia wins

They wanted to mess with our election, cast doubt and mess with our heads. Mission accomplished. We need to restore faith in the system. Before we can do this, Republicans have to get on board and acknowledge we have a serious problem.

[Achilleaze]

19. Republicans smirk as American democracy

Falls victim to their corrupt collusion with the evil Empire Russians

[elmac]

20. Republican voter suppression did most of the damage

and made the polling errors worse in states targeted by repug election fraud. The ruskies added to the problem with their cyber warfare. GOB and ruskies were working together to steal this election, no doubt.

[-Steph-]

21. I'm going to post a youtube link to a video made by an election observer in Racine County, Wisconsin

As we all know, Wisconsin was one of the key states that handed Trump the election. If what this observer is saying is true, which it appears to be in my opinion, then it does seem like there was something up with at least some of the vote totals there.

[iluvtennis]

22. We need to start counting votes manually. There are many ppl (including me) who will volunteer to

do so. Also, all voter suppression and gerrymandering needs to cease and desist.

[Hekate]

23. So is Hillary analyzing Russian interference et al. still "whining"? The little lady should stfu?

I said this months ago: We Democrats were going about our business on a sunny day and we were mugged and ratfckd by a gang of criminals. Our leader was beaten bloody and left for dead. And this is somehow all her fault, or all our fault?

If we don't have her back now, who will ever have ours again?

[-Steph-]

24. I agree with you 1000%. I feel uncomfortable when I hear media people and even Democrats

suggesting that Hillary should just go quietly into the night. The election wasn't just stolen from her, it was stolen from all of us. The country, and the world for that matter, are so much worse off because of it too. But it's like we're all supposed to just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that it didn't happen. Why?

We already know for a fact that the Russians hacked into voting software in at least 39 states and targeted over 100 election officials. We're supposed to believe that they did all of that for nothing? That they were in there and didn't do anything that would alter the vote totals? That's insane. They hacked into the voting software, targeted election officials, every poll was "wrong", and the results were so off in key places that it was truly alarming. But hey, move along, there's nothing to see here folks. Yeah right. As long as we keep burying our heads, it will keep happening.

[Crash2Parties]

25. Why are any of our election systems even internet accessible?

They could be secure. They could connect via modem, or over the Internet but only by encrypted tunnels. The results could be encrypted & checksummed. The local tally machines could even need to be physically connected to the central tally machine, with no internet connection. The entire voting process for all systems could be mandated to be audit-proof. They are not.

We, The People, need to be asking why not.

[Lee-Lee]

29. They are not. That's what people don't get

Machines don't connect to the internet. 99% of them don't have the hardware to ever do so. I found one model that offered an option for a cellular connection that was pretty much never purchased and the only cases I found where it was they never activated it.

The machines used to tabulate in counties are standalone also. And they take the vote totals from machines direct and record them before tabulating between all so they can make sure numbers add up during audits.

[Demsrule86]

33. There is no safe computer.

We need paper ballots...consider that when computers are used the results are skewed...what about Brexit? Was that legit?

[Crash2Parties]

38. Respectfully I disagree. We know how - it's not even terribly expensive.

We as a people, choose not to make the security of our election proceses a priority.

We choose to not insist that all systems involved pass some pretty low thresholds for being highly secure.

[Scurrilous]

26. K&R

[Bradical79]

27. Who is this guy?

Why would you post this if you can't vouch for the source? Not sure what the point is in posting tweets from questionable sources. It's an easy way to spread bullshit.

[kentuck]

30. Pace Lattin? Never heard of him?

Unless there are correlating sources, I would take with a grain of salt.

[JDC]

32. One might wonder if they hacked 45's win of the primaries also?

That might make Rs take notice

[Tactical Peek]

36. No evidence votes were changed?

No evidence votes were changed, no totals altered etc . . .

How much evidence did they collect, in what investigation?

How many voting machines were audited? What was the audit method and who performed it?

In which states, which counties, which precincts?

Who headed this investigation, what resources did they have?

How was it conducted so quickly, with announcements of "no evidence" mere weeks after the election?

My wild ass guess is that there was no actual investigation of digital vote tampering, just some "incidental collection" that came during their probe of the DNC hack etc.

There needs to be one - an in-depth, comprehensive and public investigation.

There won't be any "evidence votes were changed" without one - not because there isn't any evidence, but because we did not look for it.



(and then we need to immediately change all precincts to a verifiable voting system, which we don't have now)

[barbtries]

37. easy for me to believe.

after the past few months it's hard to recall exactly, but on 08Nov2016, I was blindsided with a catastrophe. I do remember calling a friend and he was in the ER with his father and not paying attention to the returns and i yelled at him, trump's winning! He said, Nah. Nah.

I don't think i knew anyone who did not believe Hillary would win. as she should have.

the outcome of the election did not reflect the will of the people.