A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1)

[k9bfriender]

@Morgyn

There’s been little record of fraud and abuse, and it means that people who are not near their polling place for valid reasons, such as being sent on a work trip or being away on vacation or scheduled for a hospital stay, can still vote.

There are other methods. Early voting, for instance. Also, I do advocate that we change voting from a day to a week, but I know that I am in a tiny minority on that one.

@Aspenglow

How would someone know in advance who planned to vote absentee? How would persons exercising this right be targeted?

I often hear that vote-by-mail is subject to intimidation by a spouse, etc., and I suppose some of this may go on. Mostly not, though, and it would have to happen on a grand scale in order to be effective, don’t you think?

Isn’t someone who is vulnerable to being bullied and/or intimidated likely to be that way whether voting in secret or otherwise?

It is a grand scale when you multiply it by the number of households. They add up. I do think that spousal intimidation is a bigger deal than we like to think. It’s virtually impossible to detect. But I do see that the potential for “Hey honey, we just got out absentee ballots in, lets fill them out together.” is certainly there.

As far as abuse, well, there have been a couple of republicans caught trying to use their wife’s (or ex-wife’s) absentee ballot to cast an extra vote that were only caught because the wife did in fact want to vote.

We also had a poster on here bragging about how he would fill out other people’s absentee ballots. We went back and forth, and we determined that it probably wasn’t illegal in his state, but I would be strongly against that practice.

Someone who may be bullied or bought when you can see their ballot is not necessarily going to act the same when you are not able to.

@davidm

It’s also an avenue that allowed people like my mother to vote for the last few years of her life. She was home bound.

And were I in charge, I would bring the ballots to her. Just like absentee voting, but there would be a poll worker to ensure that she voted her own ballot. It is also an avenue that could have allowed you to have an extra vote for the last few years of her life, were you so inclined to commit such acts.

@asahi

Yeah, I honestly don’t get the bit about absentee voting. I voted as an absentee voter at least 2X - I never suspected corruption of any sort. It’s possible my vote might not have been counted but that’s possible in any form of voting.

The fact that most people don’t vote, and even fewer vote in mid term years, and even fewer vote on odd years means that if I take that absentee ballot out of your mailbox, fill it in and send it, there is a very good chance that it will be the only vote in your name. Even in the cases where it shows as a double vote, there will be no way to point it back at me without some serious forensic costs.

Absentee ballots are very low on my list of priorities for securing elections, so I’m not looking to make a big deal of it, especially as it is a bit off topic.

But, I do feel that it is best practices that everyone who is able to to do so should go to their polling place to register their secret ballot, and exceptions or assistance can be made on a case by case basis.

[k9bfriender]

@Ann_Hedonia

Actually, I can’t imagine Archie or any Trump era abusive husband being that organized in their thinking. More likely they would just harangue their spouse about their vote until they were sufficiently intimidated into obeying. Or maybe they would insist on going into the voting booth with their spouse to “help” them.

Which is NOT illegal.

https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/sites/default/files/2016-09/sec208-English.pdf

The only people you CAN’T take in the voting booth with you are your employer or union rep. Like it or not, it seems to be perfectly legal for an abusive husband to “force” his wife to vote for Trump. It would not surprise me if this became a cornerstone of the 2020 campaign.

The booth is not a soundproof cubicle. Polling workers would notice if it seemed that the assistance was less about reading and writing English, and more about who to vote for. They may step in and disallow the assistance if they feel that the vote is being coerced.

@Yllaria

I’d imagine the vast majority are in-home abuses. My aunt took a shot at voting for her hard of hearing, wheelchair-bound husband. Unfortunately, she was bed-bound at the time and I told her it had been thrown out. Which was true very soon after.

And how often does that get cuaght?

The only way to vote for multiple people would be to work in a rest home. Are absentee ballots forward-able?

That’s actually a problem. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/vote-fraud-election-seniors-pennsylvania-20171103.html https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/13/reaching-across-aisle-texas-lawmakers-target-voter-fraud-nursing-homes/ http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pa-nursing-home-voter-fraud-20171103-story.html

Dang. I wonder how likely that would be to be checked up on. It would certainly stick out. Does the helper have to sign anything?

Yes, in order to get assistance, the voter needs to sign an affidavit saying that they have difficulty speaking, reading, writing or understanding English, and the assistant needs to sign that they did not tell you how to vote.

[davidm]

@k9bfriender

…
It is also an avenue that could have allowed you to have an extra vote for the last few years of her life, were you so inclined to commit such acts.
…

Even if I had been so inclined it could never have happened because, knowing her, she would have been asking for her ballot and eventually calling voter services to ask why she hadn’t received it.

People need to be proactive about protecting their own vote. They can’t assume that authorities will protect it when those authorities’ livelihoods may depend on the outcome of the election.

[DesertDog]

@SteveG1

What brink, and why pull them back? They made this poison, now let them drink it. I’d vote for whoever is the WORST, and try to sabotage them at this point.

I considered that but especially in this state, once having won the primary, the wingnut end of the party may well carry them through to victory and I would rather not have another Trumpet senator standing by come impeachment season.

[SteveG1]

@Sage_Rat

No. Trusting that the general public is, on average, reasonable and far-sighted enough to realize that they’re facing a bunch of crazies who need to stay out of positions of authority is not safe.

Sad but true

[SteveG1]

@DesertDog

I considered that but especially in this state, once having won the primary, the wingnut end of the party may well carry them through to victory and I would rather not have another Trumpet senator standing by come impeachment season.

Again, sad but true.

[Aspenglow]

@k9bfriender

It is a grand scale when you multiply it by the number of households. They add up. I do think that spousal intimidation is a bigger deal than we like to think. It’s virtually impossible to detect. But I do see that the potential for “Hey honey, we just got out absentee ballots in, lets fill them out together.” is certainly there.

As far as abuse, well, there have been a couple of republicans caught trying to use their wife’s (or ex-wife’s) absentee ballot to cast an extra vote that were only caught because the wife did in fact want to vote.

We also had a poster on here bragging about how he would fill out other people’s absentee ballots. We went back and forth, and we determined that it probably wasn’t illegal in his state, but I would be strongly against that practice.

Someone who may be bullied or bought when you can see their ballot is not necessarily going to act the same when you are not able to.

It’s here that we disagree. As I mentioned above, I’m sure it happens. But I think the number of people who are subject to being bullied and bought will pretty much vote as they are told, whether or not someone stands over them. I think the unicorn is the plucky woman who, while completely unable to disentangle herself from a bullying relationship 1) votes; and 2) votes in defiance of her abusive husband’s wishes. I just don’t see an army of abused people making that much of a difference just because they avail themselves (assuming they do) of secret voting.

@k9bfriender

And were I in charge, I would bring the ballots to her. Just like absentee voting, but there would be a poll worker to ensure that she voted her own ballot. It is also an avenue that could have allowed you to have an extra vote for the last few years of her life, were you so inclined to commit such acts.

Thousands of people vote absentee. Having a poll worker go to each place – if even practicable, which it isn’t – would be very expensive. It’s not practicable because many people vote absentee due to not being home during the election. How much are you willing to pay in extra taxes to prevent what has never been shown to be a significant problem?

@k9bfriender

The fact that most people don’t vote, and even fewer vote in mid term years, and even fewer vote on odd years means that if I take that absentee ballot out of your mailbox, fill it in and send it, there is a very good chance that it will be the only vote in your name. Even in the cases where it shows as a double vote, there will be no way to point it back at me without some serious forensic costs.

Absentee ballots are very low on my list of priorities for securing elections, so I’m not looking to make a big deal of it, especially as it is a bit off topic.

But, I do feel that it is best practices that everyone who is able to to do so should go to their polling place to register their secret ballot, and exceptions or assistance can be made on a case by case basis.

You obviously don’t live in my neighborhood. Any stranger noticed (and you would be noticed!) fiddling with people’s mailboxes other than our usual postie would have his/her license plate number taken down and be immediately reported. You might grab a dozen absentee ballots before you were interrupted. But you wouldn’t grab one from my very secure, locked mailbox. Most people around here have that sort of box. Hard to break into.

I agree with davidm. At some point, you have to take responsibility for the integrity of your own vote. I think the vast majority of people do. If they vote at all, they take it very seriously.

[asahi]

Agent Strzok has now been officially fired by the FBI

F.B.I. Agent Peter Strzok, Who Criticized Trump in Texts, Is Fired (Published...

[asahi]

@Aspenglow

You obviously don’t live in my neighborhood. Any stranger noticed (and you would be noticed!) fiddling with people’s mailboxes other than our usual postie would have his/her license plate number taken down and be immediately reported. You might grab a dozen absentee ballots before you were interrupted. But you wouldn’t grab one from my very secure, locked mailbox. Most people around here have that sort of box. Hard to break into.

I agree with davidm. At some point, you have to take responsibility for the integrity of your own vote. I think the vast majority of people do. If they vote at all, they take it very seriously.

More than that, not everyone is going to receive a ballot. People aren’t going to know on which days ballots are going to be mailed, and to whom, and how the recipients of said ballots are going to vote. So someone trolling the neighborhood’s mailboxes is going to look very suspicious. Intentionally interfering with postal service is a federal crime with pretty severe penalties, which is probably just as or even more severe than voter fraud in many states. I’ve done paper/mail ballots multiple times - never worried about it.

[BobLibDem]

@asahi

Agent Strzok has now been officially fired by the FBI

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/us/politics/peter-strzok-fired-fbi.html

Dick move number 1,273. Can’t have people expressing political opinions contrary to The Donald, can we?

[Aspenglow]

@BobLibDem

Dick move number 1,273. Can’t have people expressing political opinions contrary to The Donald, can we?

No kidding, although I thought we were up to Dick Move 10,416.

How dare Strzok be outraged that a traitor might actually take the Oval Office, using illegal means to gain the purchase?

Strzok was guilty of carelessness, but it’s hard to think he would have been fired for such carelessness in a time when the FBI wasn’t being so politicized. To me, that’s the true outrage – the politicization of the FBI.

[asahi]

@BobLibDem

Dick move number 1,273. Can’t have people expressing political opinions contrary to The Donald, can we?

I don’t personally think that Strzok was a bad guy and he seemed like he was doing his job, but let’s face it: he and Lisa Page weren’t entirely professional. I know - they never expected that anyone would be reading their texts, but they were using government-issued accounts and devices, and they were in the middle of two of the most politically sensitive criminal investigations in recent memory. My only guess is that they just had it in their minds that Clinton would win and never considered the possibility that their texts would be in any way relevant.

[asahi]

@Aspenglow

Strzok was guilty of carelessness, but it’s hard to think he would have been fired for such carelessness in a time when the FBI wasn’t being so politicized. To me, that’s the true outrage – the politicization of the FBI.

There’s no question that politics influenced the decision, but given the context of the situation, I understand why the Bureau decided it was time to move on. The illicit affair by itself impugned his character, as well as that of Lisa Page. I’ll worry more when they start going after other agents on the case.

[Yllaria]

@k9bfriender

. . . Yes, in order to get assistance, the voter needs to sign an affidavit saying that they have difficulty speaking, reading, writing or understanding English, and the assistant needs to sign that they did not tell you how to vote.

Thanks. I was hoping that was the answer.

[BobLibDem]

@asahi

I don’t personally think that Strzok was a bad guy and he seemed like he was doing his job, but let’s face it: he and Lisa Page weren’t entirely professional. I know - they never expected that anyone would be reading their texts, but they were using government-issued accounts and devices, and they were in the middle of two of the most politically sensitive criminal investigations in recent memory. My only guess is that they just had it in their minds that Clinton would win and never considered the possibility that their texts would be in any way relevant.

I get that and to a point I agree in that they used their government accounts for their personal messaging. But I can see the day (and maybe it’s already here) where they’re going to go fishing through personal email accounts and social media to fire those who don’t support the party in power.

[simster]

@asahi

There’s no question that politics influenced the decision, but given the context of the situation, I understand why the Bureau decided it was time to move on. The illicit affair by itself impugned his character, as well as that of Lisa Page. I’ll worry more when they start going after other agents on the case.

Why haven’t they fired Page?

(Trump does call her Lovely tho, in tweets)

[Morgyn]

@simster

Why haven’t they fired Page?

(Trump does call her Lovely tho, in tweets)

She left a while back.

[Crotalus]

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wrote a brief summary that put today’s firing in perspective for me.

@Josh Marshall

At the time two years ago when the FBI began investigating a far-flung foreign conspiracy to throw the 2016 presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor, James Comey was Director of the FBI; Andrew McCabe was 2nd in command and Peter Strzok was Chief of the Bureau’s Counterespionage Section. There was ample suspicion then and ample evidence now that candidate Trump’s associates were deeply involved in the conspiracy. Comey, McCabe and Strzok have now each been fired. The President has threatened each with prosecution.

It’s the second story here.

[Ravenman]

@Aspenglow

To me, that’s the true outrage – the politicization of the FBI.

What, specifically, do you see the FBI doing that is politicized? Are you referring to Special Agents of the FBI having opinions on political matters; or fact that Hillary was investigated at all; or that Trump is being investigated at all; or something else?

[Jack_Batty]

I certainly hope the next Democratic president immediately subpoenas the text records of every FBI agent and fires anyone with a right leaning bias as soon as he’s sworn in so we can avoid this type of embarrassment in the future