I think Josh Marshall, our good friend over at Talking Points Memo, has the best take on this so far. In a word, “skeptical”.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/those-russian-election-hacking-claims
I think the TPM guy is wrong in several aspects: such a hack doesn’t need to involve a lot of people, and doesn’t need to be “on the fly”.
If it does require lots of people, well, those crews are already presumed to exist (see: DNC hacking).
And in terms of where to alter the vote results, changing numbers in rural areas makes a whole lot of sense based on the crowds attending Trump events.
Presumably, the DNC is one system to be hacked, the electoral stuff is more diverse.
Anyway, with Jill Stein pressing the case, changes a lot. Her chances are no worse than anyone else and if she pulls a unicorn out of the hat, I will still deliver a firm “tsk! tsk!” but leave it at that.
According to Computer Scientists Think Hillary Clinton’s Vote Totals Were ‘Hacked’ in 3 States | Glamour, computer scientists have claimed that Hillary Clinton had her vote totals hacked in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
According to the article, her vote totals may have been lowered, and these people are suggesting that she call for a recount.
Additional links here: Computer experts say vote totals for election may have been hacked | WPEC
I make no claim as to the accuracy of the vote totals, and I pass no judgment as to whether she should or shouldn’t pursue this. I merely offer it for debate and discussion.
If its true, then she shouldn’t let it go.
Trump is the least of all human beings on earth worth falling on a sword for…
A few days ago, https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsina group of computer scientists told Clinton that the results of the election might not be completely kosher.
There were lots of petitions to get Hillary to demand a recount by Fridayhttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton-trump.html?_r=0&referer=http://www.google.com, the deadline to file the demand. Since there was no response from the Clinton campaign, Jill Stein stepped in Jill Stein raises over $4.5m to request US election recounts in battleground states | Jill Stein | The Guardian. As a candidate for President, she can request a recount. And, unlike Clinton, she wouldn’t look like a sore loser if she did so.
Her main obstacle, at this point, is financial. Stein is asking for a recount in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, three states in which the vote count was very close.
Absurd though this might seem, a recount isn’t free. The filing fee in Wisconsin alone is $1 million, so she’s asking for donations[/URL https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
The campaign has been very successful so far. The site’s been up for…oh, eight hours, now, I think, and the total amount donated is already up to $1.39 million. Stein needs $2.5 million by 4:00 pm on Friday in order to make the recount a reality.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I’m so sorry for the horrible formatting. I can get it right when I use my computer, but right now, all I have is my phone m
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Actually, if you read what the actual computer scientists said, the conclusion is very different.
J. Alex Halderman, who has spoken to the Clinton campaign and raised the flag on this states:
So, lesson one, when possible read the source and not the media outlets interpretation of the source.
He has an article on medium.com which I would link to but linking on a Kindle is a pain in the ass.
Slee
She said during the election that Hillary was worse than Trump. Why is she now falling for a recount? I call shenanigans and want to know what she really wants that money for.
^ That snippet from Halderman was followed by this:
So, although he says" probably not", it doesn’t seem he thinks that “probably” is a very strong one.
I think it’s more likely that Democrats want a recount but can’t very well demand one when they swore up and down that not only was the election not rigged, couldn’t possibly be rigged, and that it was totally disqualifying and dangerous to even suggest that could be rigged.
So Jill Stein is quietly asked to be the one to do it.
Not that there’s anything wrong with asking for recounts if there’s a chance it could change the outcome. It’s just that Democrats aren’t in a position to do it.
Vox makes the case that recounts should be done, simply because no one ever actually checks to see if the electronic totals match up with the paper totals.
That’s all well and good, but wasn’t Vox on board with the rhetoric that questioning the integrity of our elections was disqualifying and extremely dangerous?
From what I’ve seen explained about how the votes are counted, the only way you could “hack” the election in those states would be to put Russian agents in charge of the machines. You can’t hack them from a network, they aren’t connected to one. So someone would have to physically be there to change the results or upload a worm that could.
Now granted, these ballots aren’t protected like Fort Knox, to put it mildly, so it probably wouldn’t be the hardest op in the world to pull off. Still very unlikely though.
I strongly suspect she wants that money for the filing fees for Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Now that all this crap has come out about Trump’s conflicts of interest, his white supremacist and anarchist chief strategist, and his anti-environmental pick for head of the EPA, I would guess that she wants Trump out of office just as much as Hillary supporters do.
Of course, calling for the recount is also a great PR move, but I’m cool with that. That’s how PR is supposed to work, IMHO. If you act from your principles and do what you and the public believe to be in the public’s best interest, that should have the side effect of making you look good.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Merged threads starting at post #25.
[/moderating]
Well, I deplore of course. Renounce, denounce and condemn, sure. But its crazy-ass Jill Stein, and she’s out of control! Love to help, guys, but, well, shit!
My guess is that she now realizes that her litany of cheap shots she took at Hillary during the campaign for her own self promotion turned out to have real world consequences and in hindsight it probably didn’t serve the interests of the Green Party all that well to inadvertently help elect a candidate who, among other things, is rumored to be considering Sarah Palin for the next Secretary of the Interior.
Doesn’t help the party, but it sure helps progressives. If Clinton had won it would have cemented the Wall Street wing of the party in power. Now progressives have a shot at the nomination in 2020.
This. I’ve worked elections. Changing results at the ballot level would be nearly impossible.
More likely, if anything underhanded happened, was that unofficial “watchers” succeeded in intimidating Clinton voters into not voting, and nothing can be done about that at this point, unless someone who was actively intimidated initiates a class action lawsuit against Trump, and even then, there would probably have to be evidence that Trump was not only aware this was happening, but had a hand in it, for there to be anything done, like an impeachment and denial of office-- even then, I don’t know what would happen. A second election is totally unprecedented, and we’d probably just get Pence, unless he was denied office as an unindicted co-conspirator, or something. I’m not sure how conjoined the president and VP are in regard to the election, prior to the inauguration, so that if the president-elect cannot take office for wrongdoing that the VP-elect is not involved in, will the VP be denied office as well? It might be a question for the Supreme Court. And if they split 50-50, I’m not sure where that leaves us.
If it weren’t for the two-term limit, I’d suggest that congress might be empowered to extend the president’s term on an emergency basis-- you know, if there is no president able to take office, Obama can continue on an emergency basis, because as long as no one else is sworn in, Obama remains president. Kinda like when Giuliani’s mayoral term was extended after 9-11, since New York City was in no shape to hold mayoral elections that were scheduled. With the two-term limit, I don’t know what that means. Maybe the Speaker becomes an interim president. Or maybe Obama’s second term simply doesn’t end until there is a president-elect to swear in.
Now, if someone claims to have been intimidated, and disenfranchised that way, and the claim is judged to be valid, BUT, cannot be traced back to Trump, I think it won’t be a reason for indicting him, impeaching him, denying him office, or doing anything to him. It may be a criminal case against whoever the “Watcher” was, but it ends there.
Checking the results and claiming that elections are a sham beforehand and with no evidence are not remotely the same thing.