Type to search

Can We Count On The Election Results?

Elections Featured Post National News Politics Top News US

Can We Count On The Election Results?

Share
Ohio voters cast their votes at the polls for early voting in the 2012 U.S. presidential election in Medina Ohio

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet. 

Another presidential election has run its course and Americans who want to participate in a process that’s democratic, transparent and accountable are left in the dark.

All along the way, there have been dismal failures in our supposed democratic process. That continues today, as election integrity activists point out that the national media’s Election Day exit polls found that Hillary Clinton was ahead in four key states — North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida — but lost the computerized vote count. That’s not the first time a “red shift” occurred between live exit poll results posted on CNN and the later vote count results.

That suggests the exit polls were either deeply flawed, or the vote count was compromised or stolen.

This latest affront comes after other attacks on the process by political insiders and outsiders throughout the race. Before the campaigning began, insiders in 14 Republican-majority states adopted new voting restrictions and barriers such as new ID requirements. In Wisconsin, where Trump was ahead by 27,000 votes, attorneys trying to challenge that state’s new law said upwards of 300,000 residents lacked the required IDs. That early attack was bookended at the election’s close by Republican election officials, from Ohio’s secretary of state to North Carolina county election boards, who gamed the field for brazen partisan advantage. They curtailed early voting, moved precincts, inaccurately purged voter rolls, and made perplexing decisions—as in Ohio—not to activate voting machine audit software, which means the results cannot be verified.

Those assaults were not the only attacks by insiders. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was targeted by top aides to the ultimately disgraced Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who worked to undermine his success. But it wasn’t just the DNC. State parties run their nominating caucuses like private golf clubs—they set the rules, which include how votes are weighted, counted (rural areas get more clout, cities get less) and released. Or not, which is what the Iowa party did. It refused to release the raw caucus vote count, allowing Clinton to get headlines that she won a virtual tie. In Nevada’s nominating caucus, the party allowed caucuses on campuses in Reno but not in bigger Las Vegas. That helped her win.

Then there are gerrymandered districts, and arguably the biggest insider-driven insult of all, the Electoral College. That holdover from the 18th century, in which the American system of elections apportioned votes to balance power between the less-populated slave states and the more urban northeast, is notoriously anti-democratic.

Most obviously, Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, which creates a system where battleground states count more than the rest of the country. It creates other distortions too, because that’s where campaigns focus and target every voter, with encouraging and discouraging messages, voting rules, etc. That overload contributed to 2016’s flat turnout compared to 2012, despite setting voter registration records.

The tears in the mislabeled democratic process don’t stop there. There were also the actions of outsiders, some overt and some covert. On the overt side were scores of confrontations between self-appointed Republican voting vigilantes and perceived Democratic voters in line, according to civil rights groups like the Advancement Project and Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, whose Election Day hotline received 35,000 reports of voting problems. Covertly, there was not just the open question of whether Russia would hack into election computer systems—voter rolls is one system, vote counting machinery another—but some real evidence that it might have happened in North Carolina.

What people heard about were scrambled voter registration database files in Democratic stronghold counties. What they didn’t hear about but what alarmed some computer scientists who track voting machinery, was the vendor that maintains North Carolina’s voter files was in all probability the “unnamed” Florida-based company hacked by the Russians. You can be sure nobody is quarantining those computer systems for immediate examination by computer security experts.

Americans are told to take it on faith that the election results are accurate, from the highest-stakes presidential elections to lower-turnout state races that keep legislatures in one party’s grip. That’s infuriating, patronizing and unnecessary. The alternative is simple: voting needs to be transparent, verifiable and accountable from the start of the process to the end. Instead, it’s just like the dysfunctional campaign finance system. Incumbents have mastered it, despite their gripes about its ugliness, and they are not about to give up their path to power.

Election integrity activists and civil rights lawyers have spent years in all of these silos trying to document and improve their corner of the voting process. Civil rights groups won lawsuits this year blocking the most egregious red-state voter suppression laws. A game-changing efforts to get states to sign onto a national popular vote compact to bypass the Electoral College is making serious headway. It has been adopted in 11 states that have 165 Electoral College votes and it has passed one chamber in 12 more states that have 96 additional votes. And Sanders got the Democratic Party to commit to shrinking its superdelegate system and to revise its caucus rules.

But there are still unanswered questions about what really happened this week with the vote count and it does not appear that key actors there want to air what’s inevitably dirty laundry. It is astounding that the major television and print media organizations that force-fed Americans all their polling data for months, to say nothing of giving Trump hundreds of millions of dollars in free media, will not discuss why their exit polls projecting a Clinton victory were wrong. As election integrity Theodore de Macedo Soares blogged on Friday:

“According to the exit polls conducted by Edison Research, Clinton won four key battleground states (NC, PA, WI, and FL) in the 2016 presidential election that she went on to lose in the computerized vote counts. With these states Clinton wins the Electoral College with a count of 302 versus 205 for Trump. Clinton also won the national exit poll by 3.2% and holds a narrow lead in the national vote count still in progress.

“Exit polls were conducted in 28 states. In 23 states the discrepancies between the exit polls and the vote count favored Trump. In 13 of these states the discrepancies favoring Trump exceeded the margin of error of the state.”

Jonathan Simon, a former pollster who discovered and took screen shots of the 2004 exit poll discrepancy that had Democrat John Kerry ahead in Ohio before George W. Bush was called the winner (the results froze on the Secretary of State’s website for more than an hour), calls this one-way pattern the “red shift.” The bottom line, he said, is that both data sets—the exit polls released in real time on Tuesday, not “adjusted” later on to match the vote count, and reported results from election officials—cannot be reconciled. One has to be wrong, which raises questions about the polling, the machinery’s accuracy or vote count tampering. But without a transparent vote-counting process, people with questions run into a brick wall.

“We call a shift towards Republicans a ‘red shift,’ and a shift toward Democratic candidates a ‘blue shift.’ We are seeing no blue shifts in this election,” Simon wrote Friday. “This is a familiar pattern, indicative of electronic rigging, but in this case even more dramatic than usual.”

“With all that has been said and written about the vulnerability of the computers that count our votes in secret, one must ask why these votes and states shifted?” he continued. “And why the outcome-changing results are simply accepted as accurate and honest. There is every reason to investigate and then recount key states by hand where possible. This is too often not possible, because some of these results come from paperless, touchscreen computers. And even where possible, with optical scanners, it is just not done.”

There’s too much that’s just not done in American elections that could make the process earn the right to be called democratic. Voter registration could be automatic for all eligible citizens. Election Day could be a holiday or all voting could be by mail—as vote by mail states have the highest participation rates. Election districts could be drawn by non-partisan commissions and not gerrymandered by one political party. Campaigns could be publicly financed and the media could be required to reinstitute the “fairness doctrine” to give candidates equal airtime. Parties could open up their nominating process to all voters and Democrats could release caucus vote counts. States could adopt ranked-choice voting to replace the lesser-of-two-evils system. Race- and class-based voter suppression tactics could be retired. The election machinery could be based on using verifiable paper ballots and transparent counting and audit procedures.

“Is it a patriotic service to our country—and the world—to passively and quietly accept the results from this election without review or inquiry?” Simon said. “Let’s take responsibility and investigate where the evidence gathered places the validity of these results in doubt.”

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights, and campaigns and elections. He is the author of “Count My Vote: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting” (AlterNet Books, 2008).

IMAGE: Ohio voters cast their votes at the polls for early voting in the 2012 U.S. presidential election in Medina, Ohio, United States on October 26, 2012. To match Insight USA-VOTINGRIGHTS/OHIO. REUTERS/Aaron Josefczyk/Files

Tags:

78 Comments

  1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth November 12, 2016

    Another reason for people to be suspect the whole process the moment Trump started to gain traction. And Trump had the nerve to suggest the system was rigged against him.

    What a convenient confluence of favorable events: GOP ID restrictions to block easier access to exercising the right to vote; veiled threats by Trump operatives causing anxieties among certain voters; Russian hacking, and meddling by other outside players, the FBI stirring up the waters just in time to distract from Donald’s comments and boasting about assaulting women which ordinarily would have put far more heat deservedly on Lord Trump; the lack of the media to do more scrutiny of Trump’s possible business dealings with foreign countries; waffling by Republican leadership by capitulating to Trump in the face of denigrating remarks about everyone under the sun; FOX and Ailes assisting Trump behind the scenes to help him with interview responses by one of their own staff. And now the
    question about vote tabulation.

    There’s a stain and on this election that should be subjected to further scrutiny in light of the above events alone. In the meantime, the Fraud Suit against Trump should proceed at full steam, with no delay. I’m sure the GOP would have insisted on the same, if favorable events had aided Hillary, or anyone else. Imagine the hew and cry from the Right Wing.

    Which all may seem like conspiracies against Trump. But after all, the Right Wing loves trafficking in conspiracies, and performing Dirty Tricks, like the master of tricks himself during Watergate.

    Reply
    1. angryspittle November 12, 2016

      The system is rigged alright. It has been rigged in favor the GOP for years.

      1. Rosemhendrix November 13, 2016

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj234d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !mj234d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash234MarketPointGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj234d:….,…..

      2. InGen12 November 13, 2016

        And the last GOP candidate who won in this fashion took us to war and left us in a great recession.

        1. angryspittle November 13, 2016

          Remember the last times the GOP owned it all. 1928-32 and 2002-2008. Chilling eh? Wait for it.

    2. brown41910 November 12, 2016

      It’s funny that now Trump is willing to settle those Trump University lawsuits. This is the man who claims not to settle suits, but then just like everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, this is just one more. How the GOP think that they can get through the next four years with a habitual liar at the helm of their party is beyond me. And the false equivalency narrative that the media played up over the past 18 months that both candidates were equally dishonest was total bullshit.

      1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth November 13, 2016

        Yes, the upcoming lawsuit should prove most illuminating. Hopefully, the prosecution will be thorough in its grilling and the proceedings shared globally.

      2. itsfun November 13, 2016

        Maybe he has more important things to do and worry about now. His job is now to lead the country, not sit in a court room.

        1. iamproteus November 13, 2016

          But…he BELONGS in a courtroom…just before going into a jail cell!

          1. itsfun November 13, 2016

            Its a civil case not a felony. If he lost, it would cost him money. On the other hand, if the rape he is being accused of is true, then he can and should face jail time.

    3. Blueberry Hill November 13, 2016

      He knew it was rigged and kept saying so, however, he neglected to state that it was rigged in HIS favor.

      ..

      1. Jon November 13, 2016

        Remember Trump is very fond of projection. There are dozens if not hundreds of examples. One of the most outrageous was Trump saying that he was not a Putin puppet but Hillary was Putin’s puppet.

      2. FT66 November 13, 2016

        It is called “psychological tactic”. Trump was aware what was going on and flipped the coin. He must be questioned why did he come up with such a narrative.

  2. angryspittle November 12, 2016

    American democracy is a fucking sham. Has been for about 30 years.

    Reply
  3. mike November 12, 2016

    Exit polls mean diddly s$$t. Now how many really told pollsters how were they voting before the election. Talking conspiracy is so silly, unnecessary and unproductive.

    Reply
    1. brown41910 November 12, 2016

      Exit polls historically are pretty accurate; otherwise no one would waste time and money conducting exit polls. What’s silly is to think that enough people who bother answering their phones and talking to pollsters further waste their own time by providing false information in the hopes that a sizeable amount of other potential polled individuals will do likewise in order to produce results that are 100% inaccurate. I’m not buying that theory. It is more logical for me to believe that in a time when at least several outsiders were trying to influence the outcome of this election, someone succeeded. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the states where the exit polls are in question, all with computerized calculations, seem to have no valid system of independent verification of reported election results.

      1. dana.parks November 13, 2016

        After 5 yrs I finally left my old work and I never felt this good… I started freelancing from my house, over a site I discovered over internet, several hrs a day, and I earn much more than i did on my old work… Pay-check i got for last month was for 9 thousand bucks… Amazing thing about this is that i have more time to spend with my family… http://korta.nu/MDe

      2. mike November 13, 2016

        This year there were lots and lots of remarkable, and remarkably contradictory finding in the polls.
        What a strange election. More educated voted than 2012 but educated to uneducated was equal. What happened to the Latino surge? No female surge! She got same number of women as Obama.
        This was a “change election” and Trump was the change candidate.

        1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth November 13, 2016

          Yes, a change for the worse. The very worst candidate in the history of the country. Impeachment will get him, if the fraud case doesn’t.

          1. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            Actually, I am concerned that the GOP will go along with impeachment and we will have Pence as POTUS.

            Like Jimmy Carter said, at least Trump is malleable.

          2. TZToronto November 13, 2016

            Oh, not to worry. The Republican Party doesn’t want Pence either. Expect President Pence to appoint (by force) Paul Ryan as his VP, and then Pence will be impeached on some trumped-up (pun intended) charge. After Pence’s conviction or resignation, President Ryan will take his rightful [sic] place as President of the United States. Then say goodbye to any social programs because Republicans hate social programs–everyone must fend for himself, except the military-industrial complex. Social Darwinism will take care of everything. President Eisenhower’s words will come back to remind everyone of what’s happened to the country.

      3. itsfun November 13, 2016

        It depends on where the exit polls are taken. A exit poll in Detroit Mich will be much different from a exit poll in Grand Rapids, Mich.

    2. Independent1 November 12, 2016

      You’re saying all that only because you’re mindlessly corrupt candidate won dirtbag!! And you know it!!!

      1. mike November 13, 2016

        And yet the smartest, most qualified women ever in the world, who was a shoo-in for the presidentcy lost.
        Why? Because of her corruption and incompetence and with the help of Obama disastrous policies the left is in the worse political position since 1927. SCOTUS is gone, presidency gone , Senate gone House gone fewer governorship, etc.
        Any dissent these last 8 years was labeled homophobic, bigoted and racist. People of faith have been hounded, silenced, punished for not going along with the left’s anti-Christian agenda. Trump became their voice against social-justice warriors Their opinions were invalidated, denied, shamed into silence by the left.
        So whatever crap you try and say. You ignored the mid-term and the losses and kept right on your merry path to political suicide.

        1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth November 13, 2016

          Feeling desperate, Mike? The noose is slowly being wrapped around Trump’s neck. He got a brief reprieve, but you can’t be serious in thinking that Trump’s sordid past and affiliations with white supremacists goes unnoticed by God.
          Trump may run, but he can’t hide from his past and present.

          1. mike November 13, 2016

            What a joke you are.
            Only in your pea brain is the noose tighting.
            I see your head is awash with the TDS -TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.

          2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth November 13, 2016

            Whatever, Mike. You’re beyond hope for now—so immersed in the sea of delusion you are that you’re drowning in your fondness for Trump. This fawning attitude you have for Donald is disturbing and abnormal for an adult, and the sign of puppy love. Won’t you at least try to be more mature and break this unrequited love you have for Trump?

          3. mike November 13, 2016

            As I said before that pea brain of yours is flipping out. TDS continues.
            The arrogance of the left and this site regurgitating how Clinton’s time had come because she is a women, a crooked women. How her lying was a non-issue over a server that was not authorized or protected.
            I’m not fawning over trump, I didn’t vote for trump in primaries, I voted for trump to keep Hillary out. The left the last eight has refused to hold itself accountable. The left demanded cultural homogeneity and it goes nuts if Americans don’t ccept the lefts anti-Christian secular agenda.
            Look at the protesting against a fair election and since they hate the out come now call it illegitimate.
            The left got blindsided this election believing everything they do has to be their way and only one way.
            One more time your arrogance has hurt the Party dearly. Worst political position since 1927.
            You got your clocks cleaned.

          4. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            How her lying was a non-issue over a server that was not authorized or protected.

            She did not need authorization to use the server…but as she said, for official business was not a good idea. When you say “protected” you mindlessly repeat the blather from the right. It was physically located in a gated community in a home under secret service protection. In addition, there is no evidence it was ever hacked. (However you define the term.) Certainly no e-mails stored on it were leaked. If it was not protected, at the very least, SOMEONE would have been able to gain access.

            The State Dept server, however, WAS hacked.

          5. itsfun November 13, 2016

            What about the reports her server was hacked up to 10 times by foreign hackers?

          6. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            Well, there would actually have to BE some reports if you want to discuss that. Show me a credible report that says her server was breached.

            I am sure you will come up with your usual pile of nothing.

          7. itsfun November 13, 2016

            ever heard of wikileaks????

          8. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            Yes. What’s your point? Wikileaks has put out nothing taken from her server.

            Try again.

          9. itsfun November 13, 2016

            its in the Podesta emails

          10. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            Right, Podesta opened and responded to a phishing e-mail which exposed his e-mails to hackers. Whether Hillary had sent him e-mails from a state.gov account or from a private account would not have changed what was gotten from his e-mails….except for the e-mail address used by her.

          11. itsfun November 13, 2016

            If you check further, you will find where Podesta and another staff member talking about Hillary’s server being hacked.

          12. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            As an actual occurrence or a hypothetical possibility or what?

            How about a link to that e-mail?

            If her server had been breached, you would have seen information from it long ago.

          13. itsfun November 13, 2016

            WE WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN. She tried to hide all she could get away with.

          14. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            So, as usual you have nothing you can cite.

            What about the e-mail you claim exists? Or did you just read about it and believe it does? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2a39bc2929b1a224be7e80f0dd8d53441e887254be08a15964586d5aa8e5969c.jpg

          15. Otto T. Goat November 13, 2016

            These people think the FBI is part of a Trump-Putin-Nazi conspiracy.

          16. Otto T. Goat November 13, 2016

            The FBI says her server was in all likelihood hacked by multiple foreign intelligence agencies.

          17. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            No, the FBI did not. You got to stop getting your information from Drudge, Breitbart and Newsmax and go to the FBI to see what the FBI said.

            https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

          18. Otto T. Goat November 13, 2016

            Learn how to read:

            With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

          19. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            Here’s what YOU said the FBI said (emphasis added):

            “The FBI says her server was in all likelihood hacked by multiple foreign intelligence agencies.”

            Here is what the FBI actually said: (again, emphasis added)

            “…we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

            See the difference?

            And here’s the thing, NOTHING from her server has been released. If someone WAS successful, don’t you think he’d want to show off his prowess?

            :

          20. Otto T. Goat November 13, 2016

            Sources at the FBI said that, which is what Comey is strongly suggesting . It’s highly unlikely a foreign intelligence service would release what they hacked.

          21. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            What sources?

            Why would they not just do what they did with Podesta’s and give it to Wikileaks.

          22. mike November 13, 2016

            So, anyone working for the federal govt working with classified to top secrets documents.can have a private server that is UNAUTHORIZED, UNPROTECTED, Is that correct? Then why was she forced to go thru a 1-2 hour class when she became SoS on handling of secret documents and at the end of the class sign Sensitve Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement? She already was using her own server and understood the importance of a secure system and ignoring its importance.
            You ignore the fact in January 2009 Obama in a directive to his cabinet, if you are going to have a private email address, it must go thru govt servers because of FOIA. If there was no problem, why after receiving a federal subpoena to keep all records why did she delette said documents? If you had done that you would be in jail in a new york minute.

          23. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            So, anyone working for the federal govt working with classified to top secrets documents.can have a private server that is UNAUTHORIZED, UNPROTECTED,

            Let’s parse this.

            Yes, anyone working for the federal government CAN have a private server. There is no law against configuring your machine to allow SMTP or POP access. None.

            Sending classified information through it IS prohibited although it is done all the time. Once again, other high government officials used not only their own server, but public ISPs to do government business. It’s just that your outrage is selective.

            I have already explained to you that the server was NOT unprotected. You just need to repeat that false statement for some reason. If it was not protected, information from it would be all over. And you will note…nothing from that server has been released.

            As for the rest, I repeat. Your outrage is selective.

          24. mike November 13, 2016

            You’re an idiot!
            It wasn’t authorized or legal. FBI has said with a 99% certainty she was hacked. You ignore her best buddy, who she was I constant touch with, Sidney Blumenthal was hacked.
            Which high officials?
            You assume to much and know to little.

          25. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            FBI has said with a 99% certainty she was hacked.

            No, the FBI did not. Like I have said to other of your pals here, you need to find out what the FBI said from the FBI and stop listening to what Breitbart or WND tells you the FBI said.

            “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile
            actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” (emphasis added)

            https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

            Since the FBI cannot completely rule it out, yes it is “possible”. However, that is a far cry from your “99% certainty”. And, if it was breached, why isn’t any of the material out there on the internet…like Podesta’s is. Maybe it’s because it WAS NOT breached. Ever think of that?

            She cannot prevent other people from being hacked…Bluemthal, Podesta or whoever…just herself. And had she used a .gov address, that wouldn’t have changed ANYTHING about those two.

            Which high officials?

            Colin Powell. Condelezza Rice. Jeb Bush. Dick Cheney. Bobby Jindal. Rick Perry.

          26. mike November 13, 2016

            I can’t decide if you are disingenuous or an idiot.
            Colin Powell and Condelezza did not HAVE a private server. Yes, they had private emails. Hey dipsh@t, NO OTHER SECRETARY OF STATE HAD THEIR OWN PRIVATE SERVER. Prove it or stick your head back up your a$$.
            Here is the SD Inspector Generals report on clinton emails.

            The findings come after nearly a year of controversy over Clinton’s decision to set up an unsecured private email server for her work as secretary of state. Thousands of the emails have been made public but it emerged last week that 22 have since been classified “top secret”. The Democratic presidential candidate has described it as a mistake but denied any wrongdoing.
            Steve Linick, the inspector general for the state department, wrote in a memo that two emails sent to Powell and 10 emails sent to Rice’s staff contained classified national security information. And yet the FBI found over 100. Oh well there goes Hillary saying she never received or sent classified document.
            “None of the material was marked as classified, but the substance of the material and ‘Nodis’ (No Distribution) references in the body or subject lines of some of the documents suggested that the documents could be potentially sensitive,” Linick wrote in the memo obtained by NBC News and the Associated Press (AP).
            In late December, he said, the state department told Linick’s office that 12 out of 19 documents under review “contain national security information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels based on a review by nine department bureaus and office”.
            For you to think that she wasn’t hacked is ludicrous. Remember what Comey said “no direct evidence” but didn’t say it hadn’t.
            NYT
            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html
            As to 99%
            https://burstupdates.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/fbi-sources-99-certain-5-countries-hacked-hillarys-email-server-if-elected-who-will-blackmail-her/
            For you to be so delusional as to not believe the possiblity of hacking shows your ignorance.
            The election is over and Clinton Lost. Democrats lost SCOTUS appointments, Senate, House and more governorships and state legislatures. Not since 1927 has the dems lost so much political power. All because of Obama policies and Clinton incompetence as a canidate.

            One more time, Rice and Powell did not have their own personnal SERVERS AS YOU SO STUPIDLY CLAIM.

          27. Jan123456 November 14, 2016

            Colin Powell and Condelezza did not HAVE a private server. Yes, they had private emails. Hey dipsh@t, NO OTHER SECRETARY OF STATE HAD THEIR OWN PRIVATE SERVER. Prove it or stick your head back up your a$$.

            If you follow the thread, you will note that I said private servers OR e-mails addresses (public ISPs). I do understand your need not to argue simple facts, but include ad hominem attacks sad as it is.

            The findings come after nearly a year of controversy over Clinton’s decision to set up an unsecured private

            No, that did not come from the IG report. Nowhere in the report did it say her server was “unsecured”. Like most RWers, you need to learn to get your information from the source, rather than what Breitbart or Drudge or WND tells you about it, but I doubt that you will.

            http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/State-Dept.-OIG-Report-on-HRC-Emails.pdf

            For you to think that she wasn’t hacked is ludicrous. Remember what Comey said “no direct evidence” but didn’t say it hadn’t.

            1. If her server HAD been breached, why has no successful hacker posted data from the server?

            2. From your NYT article, “whatever the risks of keeping her own email server, that server was certainly no more vulnerable than the State Department’s. Had she held an unclassified account in the State Department’s official system, as the rules required, she certainly would have been hacked.”

            Regarding your 99%, yes, the headline of a blog says that. It simply provides no evidence or names to connect it to. Just anonymous “sources”. It’s been reported that the NY office of the FBI was pro-Trump. How do you know these “sources” are real?

          28. mike November 14, 2016

            You really are a joke,.
            In your world a federal employee can have a private server run classified documents thru that server with impunity.
            Prove your point Produce the IG report reporting such.
            As to 1. Why should they? Why show your strength/advantage. Could they believe she would be elected and try to blackmail.
            No. 2 we will never know. We don’t know how good her security was!?
            Anyone that ignores the possibility of not being hacked is living in la la land.
            As to sources, how to do know there not? I guess you missed the word “multiple” and with the anger in FBI by agents who worked on clinton’s emails against Comey.

          29. Jan123456 November 14, 2016

            In your world a federal employee can have a private server run classified documents thru that server with impunity.

            Mike, you need to read what I wrote instead of interjecting your interpretation. I never said what you claim. I did say that federal employees have no prohibition on configuring their personal computer as an e-mail server (POP3 or SMTP) any more than you and I do. I also said that sending classified information though that system IS prohibited. However, like exceeding the speed limit or not reporting all income on a form 1040, it is commonly done.

            I already gave you a link to the IG report in my last post, but since it’s clear you don’t read what I write, here it is again.

            http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/State-Dept.-OIG-Report-on-HRC-Emails.pdf

            I also never said there was no possibility it was hacked. What I did refute were those who said the FBI reported a “99% probability” or claims of that ilk.

            I don’t know that there are NOT sources and never claimed there are not. You claimed there were but are just unable to confirm their credibility as they are anonymous.

          30. mike November 14, 2016

            No this is what you actually said. Hmmm
            “Sending classified information through it IS prohibited although it is done all the time. Once again, other high government officials used not only their own server, but public ISPs to do government business. It’s just that your outrage is selective.”
            When PRESSED your answer was Powell and Rice with other people that nothing to with Secretary of State. Which is an absolutely wrong. They never had there own servers.

            So let’s put this to bed. These are simple yes or no questions.
            Was the State Department aware of her private server? yes or no
            Did Hillary have authorization to have a private server to conduct state department business. Yes or NO
            Did Hillary have a server secured by the federal govt.? Yes or NO
            Were classified documents, some Top Secret, found by the FBI on her private server. Yes or No
            Anonymous as are most whistle blowers at first.

            Again, this is all moot. Hillary, the most brilliant women ever, using poor judgment set up her own unauthorized and unsecure server was caught and lied about it. She ran for president anyway and was defeated. End of Story.
            With the help of Obama’s poor leadership/policies and her untrustworthiness together they took the DP to the lowest political clout since 1927. No Presidency, House, Senate, no appointments to SCOTUS, fewer governorships, state legislatures.

          31. Jan123456 November 14, 2016

            How is what I typed the first time regarding servers and classified information different in meaning from what I typed the 2nd? The essence is the same even if I worded it somewhat differently.

            You call someone asking a clarifying question pressing me? The term I used was “high government officials”, I was asked to clarify. You’re the one who then interjected State Dept, not me.

            Was the State Department aware of her private server? yes or no

            Yes.

            “We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. ” (James Comey)

            Were classified documents, some Top Secret, found by the FBI on her private server.

            No

            “Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified
            information bore markings indicating the presence of classified
            information.” (James Comey) Note that he did not say “classified documents. And this “small number” turned out to be three.

            Did Hillary have a server secured by the federal govt.?

            No. Had she done so, her account would have been hacked when the State Dept. servers were breached.

            I do agree with you that the Dems have some serious rebuilding and rebranding to do.

          32. mike November 14, 2016

            Are you really this delusional?
            Question No.1. Correct answer is NO to the question Was the state department aware of per private server?
            http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-email-server-when-did-obama-know-230285
            Big difference between email domain and server.
            If everyone knew, Why was NYT’s article so explosive? It was the server, stupid.

            Question No 2 Correct answer is NO to question, Did Hillary have authorization to have a private server to conduct state department business. Yes or No
            So I assume you knew she DID NOT since you ignored the question.

            Question 3. Correct answer is No to the question Did she have a server secured by the Federal Govt.? You got that one right.

            Question 4. Correct answer is Yes to question, Were classified document, some Top Secret found by the FBI on her private server. Yes or No? You were wrong again.
            https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system.
            Emails that went thru her server were top secret. Wrong again.
            4 questions and you gave three(2) wrong and one you didn’t want to answer. You are either a serial liar or just plain dumb.
            Go back under a rock where you belong.

          33. Jan123456 November 15, 2016

            1. Read your Politico article. It was clear Obama was not sending e-mail to a state.gov address. Now, whether he had the technological savvy to know that meant a private server is not clear, but all who e-mailed her knew it WAS NOT a government e-mail. And the FBI acknowledged this.

            2. OK. No she did not say “Captain May I”.

            4. You used the same link I did. The difference is I directly cited the statement in support of my point that NO TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS were found. Show me where he said top secret documents were found on the server. Cut and paste that line. I won’t hold my breath.

          34. mike November 15, 2016

            Quite wasting my time. State Department had no idea she was using a PRIVATE SERVER. THE SERVER WAS UNAUTHORIZED, UNPROTECTED BY FED. GOVT., COMEY SAID THERE WERE TOP SECRET INFORMANTION IN HER EMAILS, AND THOSE EMAILS WENT THROUGH HER SERVER/SERVERS, WHICH SHE USED FOR ALL HER COMMUNICATIONS. YOU KNOW IT AND THE WORLD KNOWS TOP SECRETS COMMUNICATIONS WERE IN HER EMAILS AND WERE RECIEVED VIA THE SERVER/SERVERS.

          35. Jan123456 November 15, 2016

            Typing your opinions in all caps does not make them fact. If you don’t believe what the FBI said and choose instead to believe right wing media, go ahead.

            And, fwiw, you are choosing to respond to me. If that’s wasting your time, you can also choose to stop.

          36. mike November 15, 2016

            Unfortunately for you all that was typed in caps were true. It is you who live in a world of delusion. Her server was unauthorized, unsecured by Feds., her emails contained top secret information that she received and sent and the SD knew nothing about email setup.

            Clinton lost because of her incompetence and character flaws.
            Ta Ta my intellectually dishonest partisan. ????????

          37. Jan123456 November 15, 2016

            You have no idea what “unsecured” means or you wouldn’t continue to repeat that word so mindlessly. Or, maybe you would continue to repeat that lie. You evidently have a thing for promoting lies…just like DJT.

          38. TZToronto November 13, 2016

            And I can guarantee that it will be unrequited, bigly.

          39. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            Asked whether he thought his rhetoric had gone too far in the campaign, Mr. Trump responded: “No. I won.”

            Show me how it’s derangement to hold someone to his word. With Trump, you can’t.

          40. mike November 13, 2016

            Why should he? He was the “voice of the voiceless” who have been invalidated, denied, shamed and silenced by the left. Victims of the social-justice anti-Christain warriors. Middle class people who have lost jobs, told the factories weren” coming back, were continually lied to.
            What you also ignored is the rest of what he said but that doesn’t surprise me knowing you have the Trump Derangement Syndrome.

          41. Jan123456 November 13, 2016

            Then tell me what I missed…the “rest of what he said”. How did I take this out of context?

        2. Independent1 November 13, 2016

          Only because once again you right-wingers cheated!! You even rigged the computers compiling the statistics, dirtbag!!

          She didn’t lose – she actually won the election and even got the popular vote except for the GOP’s riggings!!! Like with Gore, the election was stolen by the GOP!!!!!!!

        3. TZToronto November 13, 2016

          The reason so much of the dissent you cite was labeled homophobic, bigoted and racist is because it’s been homophobic, bigoted and racist. And as for the anti-Christian agenda you mention, what part of your religion, assuming you’re a Christian (probably a CINO) are you no longer allowed to practice? Has your church been shut down by a left-wing cabal or by a Democratic state government? I assume you’re basing you perception of Christian bashing on the alleged War on Christmas. As you are undoubtedly well aware, Christmas is still being celebrated (as an old friend once called it, Madison Avenue Day). What you see as an attack on Christianity is nothing more than an appreciation that some people do not and never have celebrated Christian holidays because–they’re not Christians. ( And FYI, you’d better hide your guns because President Obama has less than two months to confiscate them.) And I’m assuming that Mike will call me a pea brain, too.

          1. mike November 13, 2016

            Your first sentence pretty much explains why your side got demolished on Tuesday. The left hates anyone that doesn’t agree with them and has been shown the left uses words like racist to invalidate, deny, and shame diissent. No more!
            The Clinton lost big time and with the help of Obama has bacically destroyed the political clout to govern. House, Senate, Presidency, state houses all have vanished for the left.
            I see the delusion continues as to what Obama can do. He is irrelevant,as usual, in less than 70 days.

          2. dtgraham November 13, 2016

            Social justice victimhood is defined by the right as not being allowed to discriminate, and not being allowed to be as big a dick as you want to be.

            Merriam-Webster needs to look into this term.

    3. Aaron_of_Portsmouth November 13, 2016

      That’s a small comfort for you. mike. Don’t you know that the Right considers conspiracies the staff of life and the best way to distract?

  4. Aaron_of_Portsmouth November 13, 2016

    Trump is stuck in a web of his own past doings, and it will only get stickier. Imagine, heading to an inauguration with a dark cloud hanging over one’s head. Poor Trump.

    Reply
  5. Michael Allen November 13, 2016

    Here is an article from 2012 regarding the voting in Ohio, “Anonymous, Karl Rove and 2012 Election Fix?” by Thom Hartmann: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12845-anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix.
    This is something that should perhaps be pursued?

    Reply
  6. Jon November 13, 2016

    The kleptocrats are at it again. There is no reason every state doesn’t have a means of validating computer ballots. It is irresponsible to trust computer results when there is reason to question the validity of the results. It is just one more tool in the Republican tool box of voter suppression, gerrymandering, lying, voter intimidation, and dirty tricks.
    The Electoral College has never served its intended function which was to prevent a demagogue from becoming president. Originally the number of electors each state was granted represented roughly equal numbers of citizens per elector throughout the 13 states. Since the number of voting members of the House of Representatives was set at 435 in 1929 it has not changed despite the fact that the U.S. has added more than 200 million people since then. Rather than tying the numbers of electors to the population of each state, it is tied to the number of representatives each state has in Congress with the minimum being 3. While the anti-democratic artifice once roughly gave each state a voice equal to its population, it now dilutes the voice of voters of populous states while giving extraordinary weight to the voice of voters in the least populous states. Land masses matter but people do not.

    Reply
  7. planetc November 13, 2016

    But surely we should be sure, absolutely sure, that our elections are not being tampered with? The presidency is one of the most powerful offices in the world, and we would therefore want every citizen to be sure the people’s will in a presidential election was being done. And yet, the possibility of election fraud seems to be one of those forbidden subjects. You can’t talk about it as though there were any question at all. And there appears to be a question. Why do exit polls work better across the world than they do in America? Why do inaccurate exit polls tend to happen in swing states? These are valid questions, it seems to me, and ones the MSM simply does not discuss at all.

    Doubtless some editors would say that to cast doubt on the validity of our elections would throw the populace into turmoil. Well, this year, the populace is already in turmoil. Surely this is an excellent year to get this information out to the public, and find a way to resolve the doubts? We could do recounts, at least spot recounts in every state where a discrepancy between exit polls and announced vote totals occurred. Surely it’s better to investigate and reach a conclusion than to wander around shouting stuff at each other?

    Reply
  8. FT66 November 13, 2016

    I believe not all polls were wrong, I believe they were right and I believe mischiefs have been played from Trump’s campaign (most likely by Reince Priebus). Clinton campaign slept on the wheel and didn’t even bother to ask how Obama Campaign of 2012 stopped the mischiefs that were about to happen in Ohio and give the win to Romney. As Trump said it from nowhere before the election: “the election was rigged”, Oh, yea, it was rigged to favor him.

    Reply
  9. TZToronto November 13, 2016

    Without evidence of vote tampering, there is little that complaining about it will accomplish. However, given the level of projection that we’ve seen from Trump during the campaign (i.e., accusing others of doing the same nefarious things he’s done) plus the diligent efforts made by Republicans in state governments to limit participation of minorities in the electoral process, it wouldn’t be too difficult to believe that an organized effort on the part of the Republican Party to fix the election in a number of states, such as those mentioned, was undertaken and successfully executed. And how many Senate elections may have been compromised as well? And what’s the remedy. In the same way that Senators are elected in the states without regard to Congressional districts, the vote for President should be national, not state by state. We shall soon have a final total of popular votes cast by voters, and it will show that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 2 million votes. In other words, the country want Clinton more than they wanted Trump, but we’re stuck with a bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic, narcissistic, income-tax-avoiding, non-reading President with ADD (my apologies to good people who have ADD) who knows nothing about how to do the job.

    Reply
  10. phyllis.cornell.92 November 13, 2016

    One year ago I finally abandoned my old job and it was a best decision i made in my life… I started freelancing at home, for a company I stumbled upon online, few hours /a day, and I earn much more than i did on my last job… My paycheck for last month was for 9000 bucks… The best thing about this job is the more free time i got with my family… http://korta.nu/MDe

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.