What will it take for the Proofers to see what happened here?

[LaydeeBug]

Seriously.

We've had truthers, and now we have proofers.

What other proof do you need?

Are we honestly supposed to believe that the Russians hacked the DNC, and then STOPPED short of swing states?

Nothing at all down ballot? NO? Do they need to hold a presser conference and SAY so?

I am being serious....what will it take for the proofers?

[Pholus]

1. In the post-fact era I doubt Putin on camera laughing at what dumbasses we were would be enough.

[Sancho]

2. Putin could shoot someone in public on Wall Street and get away with it...

[Zoonart]

3. Lights Out

Will be the proof.
There is so much garbage fake news out there that people don't see the truth when it is right in front of them. Everyone and everything is suspect when you h ave been led to believe that every opinion has weight and the truth is only the truth when YOU believe it. This is why we have so many science deniers.
Sew confusion and dissent... that is part of the plan too. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[mythology]

4. How about even the slightest bit of evidence? One shred

You have presented none and continually insult anybody who disagrees with you. You try to link us to 9/11 truthers, but we're not the ones who are choosing to believe what we want to be truth in the absence of any evidence. Insult everybody else all you want. It doesn't make you any more correct. It just makes it clear you have nothing else.

[LaydeeBug]

5. Again...I ask...honestly...I know you like to follow me around

saying that *I* am insulting you when you are the one responding to me, but that's none of my business (drinks ice tea) and completely beside the point.

With trying your best to extrapolate ME from the scenario, what PROOF do you need?

17 intelligence agencies isn't enough?

What is?

Seriously.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. Zero intelligence agencies

have said that the vote was hacked.

Zero.

Losing an election, even by a close vote, doesn't mean that the vote was hacked. Wisconsin was completely recounted, and Trump actually gained votes. I won't be even a little bit surprised if, upon completion of the investigation into the Wayne County, Michigan vote, it's found that there was indeed vote fraud - in Hillary's favor.

Other than internet conspiracy theorists, no one is saying that they believe voting machines and/or tabulators were hacked, thus changing the vote count in Trump's favor.

[ElementaryPenguin]

10. Wisconsin was not fairly recounted!!!!!

The counties with the biggest problems refused to do hand counts. Running the results through the same vote tabulators would just produce the same hacked results!!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. And which counties were those? n/t

[triron]

20. Yes correct!

[MichMary]

25. Those counties

use optical scanners, which are not connected to the Internet. How many people do you think it would take--all willing to keep a huge secret--to sneak into all those rural counties to mess with the machines, each individually?

[ElementaryPenguin]

59. Wrong. They ARE connected to the internet!

LINK:

snippet:
FBI Director Comey told the American people and specifically
Congress
that the US voting machines
are not connected to the Internet. As we’ve seen, at least in the case of the extremely popular DS200
voting machine, that wasn’t true. They are
physically
connected to the Internet, without question.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/recountnow/pages/34/attachments/original/1481829147/DS200_wireless_security-2-2-Jim-March.pdf?1481829147

[HoneyBadger]

63. I skimmed this "article"

The DS200 initiating the connection does not mean that inbound connections are possible. And FTP, TCP/IP, POP3, all predate what you know as the Internet.

[ElementaryPenguin]

65. The authors don't agree...

And there's also the fact that these vote tabulators had cellular connectivity - discovered in the Wisconsin recount.

Since there was evidence that the Russians hacked into the manufacturer's system - they would likely have known this.

[cwydro]

11. Thank you.

"Proofers"?

Oh boy.

[LaydeeBug]

13. I see...so you won't be even a little bit surprised if there was indeed fraud in Hillary's

favor, but it is impossible it happened the other way.

Oooooo-kay.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. Exactly n/t

[Turbineguy]

52. They probably hacked in for preparation

but found there was no need to change the count. The republicans had already taken care of that part.

[Tavarious Jackson]

15. Are you serious?

[LaydeeBug]

32. very...but only with me it seems, lol

[Hekate]

33. 17 intelligence agencies

[MichMary]

6. E-mails were leaked,

or hacked, or whatever.

No one at all thinks that voting machines were tampered with.

Further, the e-mails were embarrassing, but probably did nothing to sway enough voters to make a difference in the election. Comey probably had more to do with that than the Russians.

[LaydeeBug]

14. No one at all thinks the machines were tampered with? I do

Or am I supposed to believe that they hacked the email and never the voter files. Riiiiiiight

[MichMary]

22. How? n/t

[melman]

24. Please

don't be a proofer.

[LaydeeBug]

75. It just might not be a good idea, lest you diminish yourself.

[LaydeeBug]

37. Not how. THAT. nt

[Blanks]

27. I do too...

Mostly because of Trump's reaction. He said something along the lines that it can't be proven unless they are caught in the act.

That seemed like an odd thing to say when confronted with it. Also, after the second debate (when he complained about the rigging and his rejection of the results) he came out and said unless it was in his favor.

Again, an odd thing to say.

[MichMary]

31. Not really so odd

considering his narcissism.

Seems to me he wouldn't have been complaining about, or even mentioning, "rigging" if he knew it was rigged in his favor.

[LaydeeBug]

38. Yes, he knew, and that was hims walking her into it...he pulled

out of swing states last minute and started naming his Cabinet.

It took less than 70K votes in 6 states to swing this election.

Are you *honestly* telling me you think they hacked the email, and not the voter files?

Really?

Really????

[lapucelle]

51. Maybe Trump was projecting.

Once the administration repeatedly reassured voters that the election wasn't rigged, it weakened any post-election claim by the administration that it was.

It always struck me as odd that Trump had very few field offices. It was almost as if he knew he wouldn't need them.

And it was quite a coincidence that the three blue/swing states Trump decided to visit the weekend before the election were Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Those visits may have been made to give him cover for the surprising result.

[dflprincess]

77. I do

just the way Hillary seemed more apt to lose in areas with no paper backup seems more than a little suspicious. As far as proof? I'm not quite sure why anyone thinks the U.S. government would admit that our elections are not legitimate.

Greg Palast is the only one who has worked this story. He's been a voice crying in the wilderness since 2000.

[True_Blue]

19. The emails were hacked & then leaked

By the Russians per the CIA & FBI. If it was at all possible for the Russians to hack the election, then they did. I find it hard to believe that they didn't at least try.

[MichMary]

23. Probably tried,

but the voting machines aren't connected to the Internet. To hack each machine individually would have taking hundreds, maybe thousands, of people, and they would all need to be willing to take that secret to the grave.

[LaydeeBug]

39. But voter files *are*

[MichMary]

44. Aaaaaaaand . . .?

Really--thousands, maybe millions of people voted illegally, or multiple times, and not one of them is willing to sell their story to the Natonal Enquirer?

[pnwmom]

29. You weren't paying attention during the recounts then.

They discovered that in 26 states they use a system that has cellular connectivity -- the vote tabulators ARE hackable.

Anything that is hackable will be hacked -- that's the assumption we should always make.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/critical-new-discovery-during-wisconsin-recount-cellular-connectivity-of-tabulators-leaves-door-open-to-hacking-300379050.html

MADISON, Wis., Dec. 15, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A huge security hole in our US elections, which allows alteration of vote totals by outsider or insider entities, was discovered during the Wisconsin recount, according to electronic security investigators from RecountNow.org.

A cellular capability is available as an option on the latest Election Systems and Software (ES&S) DS200 model of optical scanner.

"Cellular connectivity at the precinct level is bad," says IT specialist Jim March-Simpson, who, along with forensic investigator John Brakey, discovered and examined the vulnerability, "but the precinct-level scanners can open an internet channel to the central vote tabulator." March-Simpson is referring to a central unit that collects and adds vote totals from a whole region.

SNIP

An entity with "government-level resources . . . could completely 'own' the electoral process," March-Simpson says. "If the central vote tabulator does not have the best possible security, then even a good hacker with a normal PC can get in," he reports.

SNIP

[LaydeeBug]

40. thank you for this. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

41. That's not really what the article said

It said that a certain voting machine model has cellular capability as an option. It also says that it's unknown how many actually have the cellular capability. Which means they don't know if any of them do or not.

[pnwmom]

48. It's a huge problem that 26 states use systems with this option. n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

54. It's not a problem unless

they actually bought that option with the machine.

[pnwmom]

55. And you just trust all those states not to have done that? It's a problem

if we're just relying on that trust. That trust was already proven to be misguided in Wisconsin.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

57. How so? n/t

[LaydeeBug]

87. they explained, "how so"

[triron]

42. I wonder what the 26 states are??

It would be very interesting if a great number of the states which trended toward Trump in the analysis by Ron Baiman had those machines.
How many states do only hand counts (no machine tabulators)?

[ElementaryPenguin]

7. The proof of Trump's collusion with the Russians will come...

If it's not allowed to come out in the Obama sponsored report it will be leaked. One simply does not public humiliate the CIA as Drumpf did and get away with it. Count on it!

[Blanks]

28. I haven't seen a lot of questions...

About why Obama closed the particular Russian facilities that he closed.

I can't help but wonder if there is something in these locations that will lead to Trump's undoing.

[ElementaryPenguin]

9. 52% of all Democrats believe the Russian's hacked the vote tallies in Trump's favor

According to a poll MSNBC showed the night before last (I think even 18% of Republicans believe it). So it's not like the thought is completely underground - though the mainstream media is treating it like it's taboo. Funny that it continues to be suppressed by some on the DU.

To me, rejecting exit polls (the legitimate - unadjusted variety) is totally rejecting behavioral science and statistics - almost on the scale of those who reject the science behind climate change.

[onenote]

12. and half of the repubs believe Trump's claim he really won the popular vote

Which merely suggests that half of all partisans believe what they want to believe, regardless of whether there is any evidence to support it.

At this point, if we are going to rely on the intelligence agencies findings that the Russians hacked emails, then we have to accept that they haven't said that the Russians hacked voting machines.

[ElementaryPenguin]

61. Many of us were able to deduce that the Russians were deliberately trying to get Trump elected -

BEFORE the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies were willing to acknowledge that fact.

YOU are obviously someone who will have to wait until these agencies deem it is the proper time to release (probably leak - with Trump in power) this acknowledgement as well.

Unless you have another motive...

[onenote]

62. My "motive" is to make sure we have the strongest case against Trump

backed up by evidence, since our beliefs about what happened won't do diddly.

And happy new year to you, too.

[triron]

21. yes

see Ron Baiman's analysis: http://www.cpegonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Unexplained-Patterns-in-2016-and-Earlier-U.S.-Elections.pdf
although he is more cautious politically in blaming Republicans.

[former9thward]

16. Maybe some evidence.....

There is zero evidence that the Russians or anyone else hacked any voting. They hacked DNC emails and that is it. None of the intelligence agencies suggest anything you are saying in this OP.

[pnwmom]

49. The intelligence agencies aren't disputing the hack of the US Elections commission.

And no one has asked the intelligence agencies to make a public statement about the cellular capability of the states' systems.

[onenote]

56. No intelligence agency has said the Russians were behind the Election Assistance Commission breach

It's the Election Assistance Commission, the breach occurred after election day, and breaching the EAC can't change votes.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/15/feds-probe-potential-breach-election-assistance-commission/95500722/

[pnwmom]

64. We do NOT know the breach occured after election day. We only know

that we caught someone trying to sell access. We don't know when he got the access -- they ASSUME he had just gotten it -- and they don't know if other "actors" had been able to take advantage of the same vulnerability.

[ElementaryPenguin]

60. There is zero DECLASSIFIED, RELEASED evidence!!

THAT is all you know.

Yes, we are all SPECULATING here as we try connecting the dots. Don't pretend you're privy to any more information than we are - unless you're working for one of these intelligence agencies YOU'RE NOT!

As if you actually know ALL classified information in the possession of the CIA about ANY subject!!

[former9thward]

66. The people claiming the hack are the ones pretending

they know the secret evidence. Not me. I guess we can now go around and make up any wild conspiracy theory we want and claim the evidence is "secret".

[LaydeeBug]

72. not so much a secret now, but I've been happy to fight FOR you nt

[former9thward]

78. Please don't.

And there is still no evidence....

[LaydeeBug]

79. Don't worry, I will...but you should

bury your head further in the sand.

No evidence my royal Irish ass.

[triron]

67. not true

Read this analysis of exit polls vs ev counts.
Probabilities are astronomical that you are wrong.

http://www.cpegonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Unexplained-Patterns-in-2016-and-Earlier-U.S.-Elections.pdf

The results from the last election may likely occur once in 130,000 years.
And that doesn't even include accounting for all the pre-election poll results and predictions by organizations such as Moody's analytics.
It could happen ( your claim that no election engineering went on) but I would not want to bet on it.

However I realize our politicians have little to no scientific intelligence so probably don't appreciate the significance or power of Baiman's conclusions.

[former9thward]

68. If you are going to hang your hat on exit polls

you will be floating conspiracy theories about every election ever. Most media organizations no longer do exit polls anymore they have become so discredited.

[LaydeeBug]

73. oddly, they still *do* them. Funny that they only disagree when it's the KGOPB

Funny that.

[spin]

26. There's a slim chance the Russians hacked our electronic voting machines. ...

If I was to worry about someone hacking our voting machines I would be more worried about the oligarchy that runs this nation. I doubt if they tried this election but after Trump managed to get elected I'm sure they are considering how to get away with it in future elections.

[Phoenix61]

30. Former programmer

It's been a long time since I worked in the IT industry but how computers work really hasn't changed. The hack of the DNC computer involved copying existing files. Hacking the election results would require changing data on multiple computers without leaving a trace. Not one agency has even hinted that this occurred.

[Amaryllis]

34. Check out these two threads for plenty of evidence of threats and potential for hacking.

pnwnom posted both of these.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028418875
More on the hacking of the US Election Assistance Commission. NOT GOOD.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512671528
We have serious threats to election integrity that must be fixed before the next election.

[True_Blue]

35. It's a fact that Russia interfered in our democracy

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2017, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

The CIA and FBI haven't released any info yet, so we don't know the full extent of it. There was enough interference in our election though that Sen. McCain is calling it an act of war and calling for a full investigation. McCain is my Senator, so I'm going to send him a letter thanking him.

When DU was hacked on Election Day a couple hours before the 1st election results with that creepy video of Trump with a gun, I had a feeling in my gut that the election was going to be stolen.

[Amaryllis]

36. I was pretty sure it would be stolen when I read that RUssia had hacked into voter registration

dababases in at least two states several months before the election. And even MSM covered that. IF they can hack into voter databases and the DNC, you think they would stop at that? Most people just don't connect all the dots. THere is a lot of Russian involvement that isn't being talked about and a lot of interaction between the Trump campaign and Russia that is also not being discussed that sounds treasonous.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-president-elect-donald-trump-connected-to-the-kremlin_us_582786c1e4b0852d9ec217ba

[triron]

43. What mischief could they have

achieved with just hacking voter databases (which are internet available)?
Perhaps just that would allow electoral vote hacking (by removing registered voters from the lists selectively just like Cross check)? Thus no need to do vote flipping on election day since votes are preemptively changed.

[Amaryllis]

46. Like Crosscheck, yes, but

I believe there was electronic manipulation also because Crosscheck type operations wouldn't explain the results being so far off the exit polls. But whatever the reason, there seems to be no disagreement that they hacked voter databases and their reasons would not be benign.

[Ligyron]

81. Finally!

This may well be exactly how they could have rigged the election in Dump's favor.

If they just threw out all votes deemed suspicious after they had already voted, then the voter in question would never even know to complain.

and we know plenty of folks showed up and weren't allowed to vote 'cept by "provisional" ballot.

[HoneyBadger]

45. You have to believe that the losing party in each state accepted the hacking

Why exactly would they do that?

If they challenged, it could have effected the electoral vote. Could have, because if the electors suspected hacking, they too would have been up in arms.

The Green Party was the only one that seems to believe that there was fraud to any noticeable degree. Not necessarily hacking, just fraud. And because of them, Detroit is getting audited.

The start of proof is a major campaign stating that there was hacking.

[Amaryllis]

47. I got really involved in this whole issue after the stole the 2004 election and it is dang near

impossible to get Dems to take voter suppression or electronic tampering seriously enough to do something about it. The Greens recounted Ohio that year and the republicans did all they could do thwart the recount, just like they did this year in the recount states. THere was enough evidence of problems in 2004 that this happened on January 6 before congress certified the election results:
"It was Democratic Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, from Ohio, and Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, from California, who actually challenged, on January 6, 2005, the legitimacy of the Ohio electoral vote. This forced the two houses of Congress to spend the afternoon debating voting problems in Ohio and the United States. Many House Democrats competently debated the voting problems, and thirty-one House Democrats voted for the challenge to the presidential election. Ten Senate Democrats spoke in favor of having the debate, despite allowing only Barbara Boxer to vote for the challenge.”
http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1095

Ken Blackwell, Ohio SOS, was also chair of the Bush reelection campaign.

[melman]

50. You don't understand

If you don't want to be seen as a proofer you must not ask for proof...or even mention it.

Since you mentioned the 'p' word, we're going to have to assume you're a proofer, perhaps even an R S T L N E'er

I'm sorry but those are the rules.

[cwydro]

53. Omg!

RSTLNE'r!

[Blue_Tires]

58. "Proofers" are the new "birthers" of the left...

No amount of evidence will convince them, which is why emoprogs like Greenwald get to appear on Tucker Fucking Carlson's show to shit on Dems nightly...

[triron]

69. kick for visibility

[LaydeeBug]

70. Serioously...what *NOW*??? nt

[NCTraveler]

71. I believe all of that might have happened...

And to some level absolutely happened. None of what you mention matters when it comes to who just won. Unless Trump was in on it then what you mention is insignificant when it comes to the outcome.

[AgadorSparticus]

74. Nothing. They aren't looking for proof. They are looking for a reality that is NOT what we stand for

They are looking for their mother country: Russia (paternalistic, white homogeneous, and homophobic). So we should send them there. Or at the very least help them pack their bags.

[HassleCat]

76. Here is the question.

We suspect election fraud when the results in machine precincts deviate from results in paper ballot precincts. We have seen states where exit polls match results in paper ballot precincts, but vary considerably for machine precincts where there is no paper trail. If this happened in 2016, we should suspect election fraud. It could be done by someone hacking into the machines, and "someone" might be the Russians. Or not. He's anyone bothered to figure out of the gap between exit polls and results is wider in places where votes were counted electronically? Of so, there is reason to think the Russians might have jimmies the election. If not, then it's likely that nobody had a finger on the scales, Russians or otherwise.

[wyldwolf]

80. Hotel receipts, empty condom packages, your friends say they've seen them together...

... but you still need 'proof' your SO is cheating. Sigh.

[kudzu22]

82. So the Russians

in their mission to ensure Trump is elected, engineered a 2.8 million vote popular victory for Clinton? That was the master plan?

[LaydeeBug]

83. Really? I mean...REALLY????

How about they didn't need to flip a lot of votes? Just a little. And not everywhere either.

Game theory.

[Exilednight]

84. Are you insinuating that Russia hacked voter machines?

[LaydeeBug]

85. Seriously? Pissed yet? What's it gonna take?

[triron]

86. Now?

[apnu]

89. What we know of the hacking isn't that way.

This kind of hacking involved sending a bunch of spear phishing emails to trick people into installing malware that could then be exploited and/or passwords revealed.

However the range of attacks they'd have to engineer against all the small, down ticket items is daunting. Hence big things that are easy targets to find and devise a social engineering email attack were hit. The DNC and a political celebrity John Poedesta. Some small state Dem rep? I doubt the hackers are even aware of those people.

In both cases with the DNC and Poedesta, the weakest link was human beings. They coughed up the critical item the black hats wanted to compromise.

If anybody cares to read it, here's a very long NYT article about "patient zero" in the DNC hack.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/insider/how-we-identified-the-dnc-hacks-patient-zero.html

But note the attack vectors as you read. You'll see fake gmail account and other tricks meant to make the humans think they're talking to someone they know when they're talking to someone else entirely. The central attack vector is human trust of email and false perceptions of email integrity.

Once they got in that way, they started installing malware that had Russian signatures and/or associations with other Russian cyberattacks and that's how the Russian's were identified.

[24601]

90. Clapper testimony included several points. He said that both the DNC and the Clinton campaign

were hacked by the Russians. He also said that no voting or vote counting systems were hacked. If someone doesn't believe him on the second point, they shouldn't believe him on the first?