Fuck! They hacked state and county election info

[RandySF]

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2018, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Now I believe, for the first time ever, that the vote count was rigged!

[Tatiana]

1. MICHIGAN!!!!!!

I have been saying since 2016 that the Michigan results were altered somehow. I truly believe Hillary won the state and that something happened with the machines in Detroit.

[Meadowoak]

9. Yep!

[catbyte]

17. Me, too. There's no way in hell Clinton lost fairly. It was especially sleazy when Scheutte stopped

the recount when Traitor Tot's "margin of victory" shrank from 13K to 10K.

[mythology]

28. How unfortunate for your theory that this has been explored

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/06/were-2016-vote-counts-in-michigan-and-wisconsin-hacked-we-double-checked/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2e5b39ec4e9b

So what proportion of the recounted votes were originally marked on paper? That includes all the votes in Michigan, and many in Wisconsin. Some votes in Wisconsin were cast on a machine, by touching a screen. In Michigan, only some precincts’ votes were recounted; in all those cases workers recounted the ballots by hand. In Wisconsin, the whole state’s votes were recounted, but sometimes those recounts were done by hand and sometimes by machine. We found roughly similar results whether Wisconsin’s votes were recounted by hand or by machine, however.

As a reminder, the systems that have the voter registration data aren't the systems that count votes. Your theory has just as much evidence as Republicans who claim in person voter fraud is a thing.

[roamer65]

36. All Michigan ballots are a paper ballot which is optically scanned.

What lost MI for Hillary is voter suppression in Detroit.

[TheFrenchRazor]

40. was there a COMPLETE STATEWIDE hand recount in MI? um, no. you are taking what is simply

simply a faith-based feeling and calling it a fact. the truth is that we don't know who really won in MI or anywhere else; that's the problem with invisible ballots and/or unverifiable computer vote counting. we need all paper ballot, all hand-counted, all the time.

[Meadowoak]

52. Wasn't it something like 400 precincts in Detroit couldn't be counted because the scanners registere

More votes than were cast, something got hacked IMHO.

[Bettie]

59. I think it was also that the poll books for some precincts were missing for a time

and they couldn't be recounted because of their election rules.

Oh and suppression and broken voting machines on election day...and the weird fact that a lot of people who didn't bother to vote for president on their ballots....to the tune of 70 thousand people. I find that hard to believe in this election, the percentage was significantly higher than the average.

[link:https://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/michigans_presidential_electio.html|

[Tatiana]

60. Isn't that a bit odd?

87,810: Number of voters this election who cast a ballot but did not cast a vote for president. That compares to 49,840 undervotes for president in 2012.

That's really weird. And no one examined all of those ballots to determine if a vote was indeed cast for president.

[Bettie]

66. Nope

that is part of the reason I will NEVER believe that the orange clown was elected...he stole the office, he grifted in as he has done all his life.

[MichMan]

69. I believe that most of those were likely write ins for Bernie

Under Michigan law, write in votes are only counted if the candidate had previously registered as a "write in" candidate.

Since Bernie did not, I suspect there were thousands who wrote in Bernie that therefore were counted as "no votes"

[MichMan]

70. It was due to incompetence by Detroit election workers

Detroit has had these issues in the last few elections. Poll workers did not balance the poll books with the number of ballots, or did not adequately secure ballots before going home. The City Elections Clerk agreed that training was not adequate and procedures were not followed. Under state law, those compromised precincts were ineligible for the recount, however the original recorded vote totals were counted.

While distressing, the issues in Detroit nearly always amounted to overvotes, which if anything, went to Hillary.

Finally, even though Detroit is 95% Democratic, expecting that the AA vote turnout would be just as strong for Hillary as it was for Obama was a little bit of wishful thinking

[RandomAccess]

55. Michigan --

MikeFarb @mikefarb1
#unhackthevote
Did Trump win Michigan? I don' think so.
Won by 10,704 but wait
75,355 Ballots Thrown Out
87 Machines Broke Down in Detrioit

Link to tweet

AND

Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

[triron]

56. Thanks for this post. Watch out for the naysayers.

[RandomAccess]

57. Yeah, I try to

Don't always succeed tho

[Renew Deal]

2. Trump was always an illegitimate president

Now you have evidence

[thegoose]

38. I've always believed that

Look at this ancient bloated clod! Does anyone believe a majority of the American people wanted this scumbag as their leader? And look how the rest of the Pukes are surrounding and protecting him (aside from the bullshit nonbinding vote to "protect" NATO).

Don't you think it's strange that all of his harsh critics two years ago (Lyin' Ryan, Grampa Munster Cruz, Mitt "Head in His Ass" Romney) are now all worshipping the Cheeto?

[California_Republic]

3. It was a little strange all the 'firewall' states

Just happened to magically be won by Trump by almost similar numbers

[sandensea]

25. And that the exit polls had to be "adjusted" after the fact in each.

The Murcdoch-owned AP is wholly complicit in this.

[mythology]

31. Sigh. Why do people believe this nonsense?

Exit polls aren't adjusted to match results.

https://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/

The writers hyping this stuff claim that those preliminary data are “unadjusted,” and therefore offer a true barometer of voters’ responses as they leave their polling places. They say that the preliminary data are then adjusted to conform to the official results. In the hour or so between when the polls close and the final exit polls are released, they say, votes have consistently shifted away from Sanders, and this indicates that pollsters are covering up election fraud. (That last bit is often left implied, lest people consider how wide-ranging this plot must be.) And, central to the whole story, they say that looking at the way these data shift is a vital means of identifying potential fraud.

Every single part of that is 100 percent wrong.

Edison Media Research has conducted all of the exit polls for the major US media organizations since 2003. Joe Lenski, Edison’s executive vice president, talked to me about how exit polls are conducted. Two phone interviews revealed just how specious these claims really are.

Here’s how exit polling works: In most states, Edison conducts phone interviews before Election Day to capture absentee and early voting. Then, on Election Day, they send staff to between 15 and 50 polling places per state, and they ask between 500 and 3,000 voters to fill out questionnaires indicating which candidate they voted for and what issues are important to them. In order to account for those voters who refuse to fill out a questionnaire, exit pollsters have to adjust their survey data. Lenski says that about 50–60 percent refuse to participate. When someone says no, the pollster notes the person’s rough age, race, and gender. They then weight their data to match the population that voted at that location.

Some media outlets post preliminary data when the polls close—that’s the supposedly raw data that, according to the conspiracy-minded, reveal the fraud. But those data have already been merged with the results of those telephone interviews, and they have already been adjusted throughout the day (the interviewers send in their survey results in three waves). Unadjusted data are never released. (If you Google “exit polls adjusted New York,” you’ll get back dozens of posts claiming that the “unadjusted exit polls” varied significantly from the final results. All of those posts are dead wrong, as none of their authors have any idea what the unadjusted data looked like.)

[TheFrenchRazor]

41. yes, exit polls are adjusted; you just believe that they are adjusted "correctly." if these pollster

pollsters are so smart why don't they just come up with polls that don't need to be adjusted after the fact. i seem to recall that exit polls were very accurate up until 2000, now they show consistent red shifts. gee, i wonder what happened.

[triron]

45. Thank you. I really tire of the naysayers. Why are they so stuck on denying a corrupted election.

[brooklynite]

4. No, not what they said...

The issue was hacking voter lists, prospectively so they could be targeted with social media messaging. There is NO EVIDENCE that voting machines or counting systems were hacked. And as I've said frequently, NO LOSING CANDIDATE claims their loss was due to vote hacking.

[Phoenix61]

11. This

Sadly, there are some that no matter how many times you repeat this will not believe it.

[Beartracks]

16. Yes, our election SYSTEM was hacked.

Infiltrate the media, spread disinformation and discord, manipulate voter opinion, etc., and you've effectively hacked the voters instead of the votes directly.

=========

[grantcart]

18. This distinctiontion will be lost.

[Botany]

21. Ohio 2004 I saw it w/my own eyes.

nt

[triron]

22. They wouldn't say that unless they had proof. No one ever checked the vote counts.

Besides if voter rolls were altered vote counts would be altered before they were even cast.

[Cosmocat]

23. Our county audits several voting precincts every election

we fill in ballots by hand, which get run into a machine.

After every election, the county randomly audits 3% of the vote by counting the actual ballots and comparing to the results the machines produced.

NOW, our county is well run, as I assume most are. But, I also have no doubt there are counties that not run well.

[mythology]

32. Except Wisconsin recounted and hand versus machine recounted districts were the same

There is exactly zero evidence of votes being changed.

[MrsCoffee]

33. The recount that was halted?

[triron]

46. Yes and precincts that were most suspect were never checked.

Besides exit polls show HRC won Wisconsin.

[TheFrenchRazor]

42. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. the machines are hackable, end of story. and IMO,

if they are hackable. they WILL be hacked. throw in the unlimited wealth and technical expertise of Putin, Inc., and repug traitorism, and it is virtually guaranteed that it happened.

[uponit7771]

47. RED HERRING !!! YOU KNOW they can hack the voting list to keep people from voting or to make hay ...

... on in person voting.

[mercuryblues]

58. IMO the access to the list was all that was needed

If your ID does not match your name on the list exactly, you are not allowed to vote and given a provisional ballot. Or if your name was deleted from the list. Between that, broken/malfuntioning machines and other dirty tricks the republikkklans employed, Clinton should have won Michigan. Especially after how the repubs reacted to the flint water crisis.


I would like to know how long they had access to the voter rolls. If it was enough time for them to make sporadic changes.

[Meadowoak]

64. This

[Achilleaze]

5. Illegitimate (R)

republicans stole American democracy from the American people with their cronies in the freaking Evil Empire* of russia.

* per ronald freak reagan

[dalton99a]

6. Trump was right. It was rigged - for him.

[Texin]

15. Yup! Classic projection of one's own sins, guilt, onto some other person or entity.

I am 100% certain that tRump was and is a Russian asset, and has been for decades.

[BritVic]

7. This is dynamite

[Baitball Blogger]

8. SHIT!

Rostenstein said there was no evidence that vote counts were changed.

[Different Drummer]

10. SAD! n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

12. Someone corrected me and said that there is no claim that there was a vote change.

I'm not sure of the particulars. Still waiting and seeing.

[grantcart]

20. And there isn't. They hacked sites to access information not to affect changes in vote count

[sandensea]

24. But do you seriously believe they stopped at just that?

Putin plays for keeps. The Kremlin gremlins got in as far as they could possibly get - including into our read-and-write election software, which was designed to be easily hacked, and for the most part hasn't been updated since the Bush regime.

Keep in mind also that they would have had to alter the result in just a few precincts in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to put Cheeto over the top.

[triron]

27. Agree with you. Wonder why so many are so naive as to believe otherwise.

[sandensea]

29. Some worry that admitting it would somehow "weaken" our democracy.

But that's like someone with a grapefruit-sized tumor refusing to see the doctor because they don't "want bad news."

It just is what it is, and we had better acknowledge it and act accordingly - or the next time our elections will make Paraguay's look like Sweden's.

[TheFrenchRazor]

43. word. nt

[uponit7771]

49. +1, this is a constant theme of those who proffer red herrings about voter machines & tabulators

... knowing damn well registration hacking worked in 2000 and could work in 2016 too.

[grantcart]

35. What you or I believe is not relevant

The OP (from a poster that is normally very sober in his comments) says that because the indictment lays out criminal charges on info hacking that he believes that the vote count was hacked.

Why?

1) They very different things saying a is true does not mean b is true.

2) This information is not new, it has been long established that they hacked voter information data bases, so why now believe that b is true.

3) Like Sherlock Holmes "the dog that didn't bark" was significant what is not in the indictment is as significant as what is in. You can't argue that Mueller's team has brought in and has access to the best data forensic people on the world (which he does) and what is in the indictment is the gold standard and as good as a conviction (which it is) but they were too incompetent to find tally changes.

If they changed vote tallies Mueller's team would have found it. If they found it they would have included it.

4) There is no statistical evidence that votes were changed, and this has been exhaustively proven elsewhere.

We have the facts. We have the proof. We don't need hyperbole and it confuses people.

When Republicans ask "is there evidence that the vote count was changed" and the entire federal intelligence and law enforcement communities say "no evidence" then a lot of less informed people are going to hear "no interference, no collusion

Projecting more serious but unsupported charges may make you feel better but they actually work against us when proven to be unsupported by facts.

[Baitball Blogger]

37. Did you notice, though, how he went into detail about how they

hacked emails and computers to mine information, and almost in the same breath, stated that they targeted people who were involved in the election voting ranks?

If I put two and two together, I would say that they were trying to find the kind of public voter worker that they could turn. Living in a hot red area I know that's not difficult to do. There are a few things I have seen in the early years that made me wonder.

If they don't find a partisan, then they could do the next best thing and use compromat that they find in the data mining.

How easy is this to do, you ask? Just the other day I received an unsolicited message from someone in the midwest insisting that I call them in order to prevent arrest. It came in through my recorder. I deleted the msg because it freaked me out. But it would take something like that to hook someone in, especially if they have something on someone.

[uponit7771]

48. THANK YOU !!! They're asking people to believe in The Magic Bullet Theory !! Bank Robbers went to

... rob a bank, broke into the bank and just decided NOT to take any money.

Nothing going on here :rolleyes:

[triron]

51. +1000

[sandensea]

53. You're welcome.

It is what it is.

The first step in tackling a problem, as always, is to acknowledge its existence. And Houston - we've got a major problem.

[Meadowoak]

65. And they are never going to admit that any votes were changed for fear of rioting and civil unrest.

[Ilsa]

13. It is only an approximation, but it could be that only

Four or five votes in each precinct in MI, PA, and WI would need to be flipped from HRC to DT for him to take the electoral college win in each state.

[MattP]

14. Having a Alfa bank flunke in charge of the criminal division makes me feel so much better

[triron]

19. what is "led state"

[triron]

26. Items 69 through 76 in the indictment gives some detail on this.

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2018, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

[watoos]

30. How many voting machines were pulled out

and independently audited? Taking the results of a machine and running the results back through by using paper ballots will tell you nothing if the machine already flipped the votes.

How many modules from voting machines were handed over to an independent auditor? The owners of the voting machines won't allow their software to be independently audited, they claim proprietary rights. What good does it do to take the results of a machine and run them back through by hand after the votes have already been flipped?

Someone show me proof where one voting machine software was given to an independent auditor.

[lpbk2713]

34. Aw but the voting officials say it just isn't possible.

Because the hardware and software mfgrs tell them so.

[Recursion]

39. The hacking was of voter registration, using data provided by GOP operatives

Flipping actual day-of votes was always a red herring. The Russians did the rest of the voter suppression that GOP state governments couldn't finish.

[backtoblue]

61. Yes, and Cambridge Analytica used that info

To use psychological profiling of voters.

[Lee-Lee]

44. No, there is no indication vote counts were flipped

That’s not easy. And in act cant be done remotely for several reasons.

Voting machines are not hooked to the internet. You can’t just sit on a computer somewhere else and gain access to them. In order to manipulate the software or hardware you would have to be physically present where they are stored, take them out of storage, boot them up, hook another computer in and change the software, shut it down, put it back in storage and leave with nobody noticing.

To do that on a scale big enough to chance a statewide total would mean doing that to thousands of machines in hundreds of precincts, all undetected.

People have said they manipulated the totals after- those people don’t know how elections work. The raw vote counts are read from the machines or from the memory cards on a computer that, once again, is not hooked to the internet. Those are read in an office in the presence of observers from both parties who write down every number.

Then those numbers are reported up. If someone hacked and changed the numbers as ther were reported up to state levels that would be quickly obvious when the numbers the state reported didn’t match what the election observers saw. The people who work the polls in every county for our party are not incompetent fools, they would notice that kind of discrepancy.

Lastly, the counties and state all conduct audits after, and the parties at state and county levels do too. If people were changing totals reported up from what te machines showed they would see it.

[triron]

50. Seems like hacking central tabulators may be most direct way to hack the vote count.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144

[Hoyt]

54. Don't believe votes were hacked, and there is no evidence a significant number of

people were told they could not vote if they went to right polls. Hacking voting machines and voter tallies would have been much more difficult than hacking a DNC or other database with little security or activity.

Yes, it COULD HAVE happened, but there would be hard evidence if it did.

Definitely, Ruskies intervened in our election with lies, bots, illegal money, etc. That cost us votes, as did Comey, as did damage done to Clinton in primary, sore primary losers who voted in some kind of irrational protest, people who didn't vote, etc.

[Ilsa]

62. They hacked the state of Georgia's voter rolls ahead of election.

They stole SSNs, names, addresses, etc of voters.

[sarcasmo]

63. If I remember right, Ron Johnson was down by 8 or 9 in the polls and won.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, all stolen by the Russians.

[triron]

67. I recall HRC had a very large early vote lead in Wisconsin.

Also in Florida.

[onetexan]

68. For all HACKING DENIERS read this Politico article from August 2016

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144

Posted this on another thread but worth repeating.

[triron]

71. Yes that is revealing and likely a lot of it happened (and maybe more we can't figure out now)