Evidence suggests votes were changed

[NewJeffCT]

Sorry for only a link. I'm not able to post more right now

https://www.theroot.com/evidence-shows-hackers-changed-votes-in-the-2016-electi-1827871206

[dlk]

1. Imagine How Many More Votes Hillary Actually Won By

[mythology]

2. Nope. Actual evidence says otherwise. This is pure unfounded speculation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/06/were-2016-vote-counts-in-michigan-and-wisconsin-hacked-we-double-checked/?utm_term=.e4bc42d36224

In brief, we find no evidence that the voting technology favored one candidate more than the other.

Nor could we find any statistical differences correlated with accessibility technologies or with different voting technology vendors.

The tests uncovered nothing suspicious. That supports a conclusion that voting machines themselves were not hacked.

Looking at actual votes. There is zero evidence of voted being changed. Desperately falsely claiming there was is the same as Republicans claiming in person voter fraud is a thing. I don't get the obsession here. Is it really so hard to admit that a roughly equal number of people back each party and that given the electoral structure we can in fact lose elections? Are we really that insecure?

[Squinch]

28. But that same article says that it looks like votes may have been changed in Detroit in

numbers that may have changed the state results. You keep citing that as proof of no tampering, but the article does not really prove that.

[brush]

30. I see you're quickly on every one of these threads with quick denials. Wonder why?

And has it ever occurred to you that that all the denials of no evidence of changed votes read curiously like glomar responses?

[grantcart]

34. +1 weekly rehash of nothing

[Cha]

3. Evidence Shows Hackers Changed Votes in the 2016 Election But No One Will Admit It

snip//

And despite what Donald Trump, the Kremlin’s Executive in Charge of U.S. Operations, would have you believe, every credible intelligence source agrees that Russian hackers, under direct instructions from our sidepiece president, Vladimir Putin, interfered with the 2016 presidential elections. The evidence shows this is true.

But when it comes to whether or not Russin operatives actually changed votes or voter rolls, no one will admit to it, regardless of the mountain of circumstantial evidence.

Hopefully, there Will be More than circumstantial one fine day! Thanks, NewJeff

[FreepFryer]

6. +1. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (n/t)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

[triron]

7. How is this an "extraordinary claim"? I would submit that otherwise is extraordinary.

[Cha]

8. Why yes it does, FF.. and I don't think all the

extraordinary evidence is in yet!

[FreepFryer]

13. Verily, ''tis true! (n/t)

[coti]

10. Ordinary, conclusive evidence has not yet even been supplied nt

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

21. Sidepiece.....bwahahaha!

Votes were changed, and they won't admit it bc they're going to change JUST enough in the fall, to not allow a clean sweep or bombastic change against dt. Can't let the cat out of the bag until they can say.."both sides do it" and have some stupid story that somehow alludes to the dems getting a benefit as well. You watch.

[Cha]

25. Of course.. they're sneaky asshole russian attackers. And,

some even on this thread won't admit it.

[enid602]

38. Leader

Cha. Our Beloved Leader admonished us in a tweet just today that we cannot believe anything that we read or hear. So he's got this covered.

[nature-lover]

4. Of course votes were changed. Delusional to think otherwise.

Glad I get a paper ballot. I do wonder about the counting machines.

[uponit7771]

5. K&R, No One Believes bank robbers broke into a bank and just didn't take any money. Something happen

[coti]

12. That's more argument than evidence, and far from conclusive

Though, yes, it does raise a suspicion.

[uponit7771]

17. Probability and circumstantial evidencecircumstantial evidence

[coti]

9. The "evidence" that the Russians changed votes and the article itself here are both very weak

I spent the first half of the article saying, "OK, enough with the rhetoric... and I know this, present the evidence." When he finally got to the point, there wasn't much. The evidence was basically:

1) There was an easy target in Georgia with a centralized server
2) Voting machines really can be hacked
3) The Russians did other stuff, why wouldn't they have changed votes when they possibly could have?

There's certainly enough there to raise the suspicion that we all already have, but nothing to me that even comes close to necessitating the conclusion that votes were changed.

[NewJeffCT]

14. This is Seth Abramson on this same article

Abramson used to work as prosecutor.

Link to tweet

There is COMPELLING circumstantial evidence suggesting votes were changed by Russian hackers and Trump may not have been elected president. The type of evidence discussed here is the same type of probative evidence used in EVERY criminal case. A MUST-READ.

[coti]

24. Explain what is so compelling. I've had my share of critical thinking practice, too.

Circumstantial evidence works on the proposition that, given the truth of the evidence, the opposing truth value (i.e., the guy didn't do it) is exceedingly unlikely. Explain to me how, given the information in the article, it is so exceedingly unlikely that the Russians didn't actually change votes.

Exceedingly unlikely they did not change votes vs. raised suspicion, i.e. a distinct possibility that they changed votes has been raised, which we obviously have here.

[spanone]

11. K&R...

[KT2000]

15. provisional ballots

what happens to those. We know there are people who went to vote but were not on the rolls. What happens to the ballots they fill out? I think this is a dark hole that votes may have fallen into. How is the discrepancy worked out and are the people informed whether or not their votes were indeed counted.

[uponit7771]

18. +1

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

22. I think when you have to sign the outside...you essentially get your ballot thrown out

if you show up as a registered dem. in farm communities etc.

[brooklynite]

16. QUICK! Call Hillary Clinton!

Apparently she was too stupid to realize what some bloggers figured out. Because she never claims it happened; Kaine never claimed it happened; Podesta never claimed it happened; DNC Chair never claimed it happened...

[judesedit]

19. Howard Dean showed how it could be done in under 5 minutes on national tv years ago.

You're not that naive, are you, to think any electronic device is secure? We're still using those same ES&S and Seqouia machines. And not even a paper trail. Wake up. Paper ballots, people! At least there's a slight chance our votes will count. Gerrymandering can't even keep us from winning if enough of us vote

[ancianita]

20. If evidence "suggests," is it evidence?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

23. Depends on how COMPELLING the evidence is...

kicks it up a notch. But, people get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time. EVERYDAY.

[ancianita]

29. "Suggestive" evidence doesn't at all sound like "compelling" evidence. Can we agree?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

33. Depends on your jury, but yes...we certainly can agree.

[ancianita]

35. Is "circumstantial evidence," and the plausibility context, the bridge?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

36. Every case is different as per court tv.

I know one thing...in the case of treason against dt...it's enough for me.

[LiberalLovinLug]

26. Even if it is "just" circumstantial

There is a lot of it. So why oh why are Democrats so silent on this issue? You'd think that if there was even a hint that machines could be tampered with, they should be, and SHOULD have been, yelling about this for years already. Insisting on paper ballots until the public can be assured in machine security.

[ancianita]

32. Should one think there is circumstantial evidence that "compels" and/or "suggests"?

Do lawyers even sift through these semantic and verifiable differences?

[NewJeffCT]

40. after Bush v Gore

Democrats were roundly criticized for being Sore Losers

[LiberalLovinLug]

43. So what?

They should have been sore losers.

In fact the way I remember it they weren't sore enough. They relinquished power too easily in the desperate attempt to NOT look like sore losers. They went out of their way to make sure that history would record how by-the-book they acted, complete with Gore himself pounding his speakers gavel down loudly to shut down the black caucus as they came up one by one to declare it the sham it was. How the SCOTUS shut down the recount that the State of Florida's Democrat leaning court ruled for on a technicality. Giving then not enough time to do a recount, and then declaring that it wasn't done in time. A recount that showed Gore would have won.

They weren't sore enough then, or about the Ohio shenanigans during Kerry's run. Nor quite frankly now about voting machines.

[NRaleighLiberal]

27. Many - including many here - simply can't go there. Which mystifies me.

It was evident on election night.

[onetexan]

42. Agree, the way it all went down wreaked of

Russian meddling & textbook GOP manipulation.

[Squinch]

31. Regardless of where you stand on this, we need to go back to paper ballots everywhere with

strict human checks on any machine counts.

[Phoenix61]

37. No, it doesn't.

Hacking and reading what's there is one thing. Changing what is there is a completely different thing. It's not that easy. Seriously, this ain't a movie. Do you really think 17 national Intel agencies would have missed this? Really? Get a grip.

[Omaha Steve]

39. Well DUH

[marlakay]

41. If this happened I think Hillary should be able to sue

who ever did it or was a part of it. Not so much for money as for the principle so it will never happen again, like have a verdict in the billions and she could donate most of the money to safety of future elections.

[jmg257]

44. Cool - I love "suggestive" evidence - now lets get Jill Stein to demand a recount!

[triron]

45. kick for visibility

[caraher]

46. The original article is now less visible

Currently the link to The Root's article says just this:

Editor’s Note: This story was an opinion piece asserting there was evidence that hackers changed votes in the 2016 election. However, a number of statements in the piece are disputed by experts. As a result, we have pulled it down for editorial review, and will update it once that review is completed.