Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[JohnStOnge]

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had this cyber security expert on. She said that when we hear people say "there is no evidence that any votes were changed" we need to understand that nobody has really LOOKED for evidence that any votes were changed. I wish I had written her name down but I was driving at the time.

Since then I've been trying to do Googles to see if I could find her and I can't. Closest thing I could find to the general point she was asserting is at https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-kn ... 1a6113b0ba.

Basically the guy was saying, shortly after the election, that we wouldn't know if there was evidence of changing votes unless we looked for it. And he was saying that under normal procedure that wouldn't happen:

The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.

Jill Stein did ask for recounts but the courts stopped them. So we never got what the guy was talking about.

Now, I will say that I deviate from the author of that article in that I do not think the polls were "wrong." As I've written in other threads, if you just look at the polls representing the latest time periods prior to the election available at the RCP site (46 available), the candidate that got the most "votes" from poll respondents won in 44 of 45 cases where polling results were available and one candidate or the other prevailed (one State was a tie). More respondents picked Trump than picked Hillary in the latest polls of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. So if you were just looking at the latest polls him winning Michigan and Pennsylvania, in particular, would not have been a surprise. But I do think it's the case that the idea that "there is no evidence that any votes were changed" has to be taken in the context of understanding that nobody really did what would be necessary to determine if any votes were changed.

[kalm]

Speaking of Ken Starr, he's now warning against a fishing expedition wandering outside the guidelines of the investigation...

[Chizzang]

Speaking of Ken Starr, he's now warning against a fishing expedition wandering outside the guidelines of the investigation...

I found that to be pretty hilarious as well...

[GannonFan]

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had this cyber security expert on. She said that when we hear people say "there is no evidence that any votes were changed" we need to understand that nobody has really LOOKED for evidence that any votes were changed. I wish I had written her name down but I was driving at the time.

Since then I've been trying to do Googles to see if I could find her and I can't. Closest thing I could find to the general point she was asserting is at https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-kn ... 1a6113b0ba.

Basically the guy was saying, shortly after the election, that we wouldn't know if there was evidence of changing votes unless we looked for it. And he was saying that under normal procedure that wouldn't happen:

The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.

Jill Stein did ask for recounts but the courts stopped them. So we never got what the guy was talking about.

Now, I will say that I deviate from the author of that article in that I do not think the polls were "wrong." As I've written in other threads, if you just look at the polls representing the latest time periods prior to the election available at the RCP site (46 available), the candidate that got the most "votes" from poll respondents won in 44 of 45 cases where polling results were available and one candidate or the other prevailed (one State was a tie). More respondents picked Trump than picked Hillary in the latest polls of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. So if you were just looking at the latest polls him winning Michigan and Pennsylvania, in particular, would not have been a surprise. But I do think it's the case that the idea that "there is no evidence that any votes were changed" has to be taken in the context of understanding that nobody really did what would be necessary to determine if any votes were changed.

NPR, and other sites, have been funny about this. In the leadup to the election, when Trump was whining that you couldn't trust the outcome of the election, folks like NPR were going on about how the election system couldn't be compromised and there has never been any indication that votes have ever been tampered with in the history of America. Trump wins, and then they find the experts who have been saying for years that the election system is a mish-mash and there's certainly the chance that votes could be tampered with. It must be very disorienting to fly rapidly back and forth across both sides of the debate (e.g. "Elections are sacrosanct, they are the voice of the people" to "Elections can be easily rigged and votes can be altered").

[Jjoey52]

IMHO, I don't think the voting machines were tampered with, if there is voter fraud, it was done by the people voting. Dead people carried Illinois for Kennedy in 1960.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had this cyber security expert on. She said that when we hear people say "there is no evidence that any votes were changed" we need to understand that nobody has really LOOKED for evidence that any votes were changed. I wish I had written her name down but I was driving at the time.

Since then I've been trying to do Googles to see if I could find her and I can't. Closest thing I could find to the general point she was asserting is at https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-kn ... 1a6113b0ba.

Basically the guy was saying, shortly after the election, that we wouldn't know if there was evidence of changing votes unless we looked for it. And he was saying that under normal procedure that wouldn't happen:



Jill Stein did ask for recounts but the courts stopped them. So we never got what the guy was talking about.

Now, I will say that I deviate from the author of that article in that I do not think the polls were "wrong." As I've written in other threads, if you just look at the polls representing the latest time periods prior to the election available at the RCP site (46 available), the candidate that got the most "votes" from poll respondents won in 44 of 45 cases where polling results were available and one candidate or the other prevailed (one State was a tie). More respondents picked Trump than picked Hillary in the latest polls of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. So if you were just looking at the latest polls him winning Michigan and Pennsylvania, in particular, would not have been a surprise. But I do think it's the case that the idea that "there is no evidence that any votes were changed" has to be taken in the context of understanding that nobody really did what would be necessary to determine if any votes were changed.

NPR, and other sites, have been funny about this. In the leadup to the election, when Trump was whining that you couldn't trust the outcome of the election, folks like NPR were going on about how the election system couldn't be compromised and there has never been any indication that votes have ever been tampered with in the history of America. Trump wins, and then they find the experts who have been saying for years that the election system is a mish-mash and there's certainly the chance that votes could be tampered with. It must be very disorienting to fly rapidly back and forth across both sides of the debate (e.g. "Elections are sacrosanct, they are the voice of the people" to "Elections can be easily rigged and votes can be altered").

And you both listen to NPR to get real news?

[GannonFan]

NPR, and other sites, have been funny about this. In the leadup to the election, when Trump was whining that you couldn't trust the outcome of the election, folks like NPR were going on about how the election system couldn't be compromised and there has never been any indication that votes have ever been tampered with in the history of America. Trump wins, and then they find the experts who have been saying for years that the election system is a mish-mash and there's certainly the chance that votes could be tampered with. It must be very disorienting to fly rapidly back and forth across both sides of the debate (e.g. "Elections are sacrosanct, they are the voice of the people" to "Elections can be easily rigged and votes can be altered").

And you both listen to NPR to get real news?

NPR is entertainment for me. And my wife likes it.

[Ivytalk]

And you both listen to NPR to get real news?

NPR is entertainment for me. And my wife likes it.

NPR strokes the masturbatory sector of the Progtard brain to make it feel better about itself.

[GannonFan]

NPR is entertainment for me. And my wife likes it.

NPR strokes the masturbatory sector of the Progtard brain to make it feel better about itself.

There's a lot of truth to that. The echo chamber is real, and on the left it's increasingly active.

[JohnStOnge]

I think that if you were to see a result dramatically different than what the polls just prior to the election are indicating you should suspect something is amiss and at least investigate. However, in this case, that didn't happen. Yes I know the popular perception is that the polls indicated there was no way Trump would win. But it's a false perception. The polls as they were on reported on November 7 suggested insufficient evidence to say one way or another who would win the electoral college.

[JohnStOnge]

On the NPR interview with the Cyber Security expert: I think the thing to do if you really want to know the answer to the question is ask yourself if you know what's been done to determine that there was no "hacking" of vote totals.

You see stuff like this a lot (from http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/forme ... le/2626624):

"I know of no evidence that through cyber intrusion, votes were altered or suppressed in some way," Johnson told the House Intelligence Committee.

Johnson added that while no votes were changed, he couldn't speak to whether the DNC hacks impacted public opinion.

Note that the statement "I know of no evidence..." transitioned into the affirmative statement that "...no votes were changed." Saying you have no evidence that votes were changed does not mean you know no votes were changed. And in order to fully assess the situation, one needs to know what kind of effort was made to develop evidence that no votes were changed.

It's pretty easy to get a situation in which you don't have evidence that something happened if you don't really make much of an effort to look for evidence that it happened.

[JohnStOnge]

Here is some commentary on the issue of the extent to which there was effort to determine if votes were changed:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/dhs-never- ... ere-hacked

“I think there’s a presumption amongst both the general public and lawmakers that DHS did some sort of investigation,” said Susan Greenhalgh, who serves as Elections Specialist at Verified Voting, a nonprofit devoted to U.S. election integrity.

“It didn’t happen. That doesn’t mean that something happened, but it also means it wasn’t investigated.”

Now, the Daily Beast has a strong left bias according to the site I use. But it also has a high factual reporting rating:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-beast/

Anyway, it doesn't do to say "they're liberal." One needs to see if what's asserted is correct. Are we in a situation in which people are saying "no votes were changed" based on not finding any evidence of such when there wasn't really much of an effort to look for evidence of such?

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, this is what the site I like to use has for NPR:



Note the "HIGH" factual reporting rating.

Now contrast that with, say, Fox News:



Note that it is rated as more biased to the right than NPR is to the left. Also notice that its factual reporting rating is "MIXED."

I don't think NPR is bad at all. Yes, it has a left bias. I've said/written that for many years. But it's got less bias and more credibility than most news outlets.

[Skjellyfetti]

Mueller must love fishing expeditions to give up a $3.5 million salary to go fishing for a year or two.

Zebley gave up $1.4 million salary

When special counsel Robert Mueller took his new job in May, he gave up a law firm partnership where he made almost $3.5 million since the beginning of 2016, according to a financial disclosure released by the Justice Department on Tuesday.

Mueller's client list from his former firm, WilmerHale, reads like a who's who of America's most prominent businesses, including Facebook, Apple, Intel, Sony Pictures, Booz Allen Hamilton and the National Football League.

Mueller was also on the paid-speaking circuit in recent years, addressing businesses like Goldman Sachs, charities and and lecture series, as well as lobbying groups like the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Insurance Information Institute.

Mueller's speaking engagements brought him about $162,000 since the beginning of 2016, the report says. His most lucrative speech during that period was to the Mexican bank Banamex for $52,000.

Mueller, a former FBI director, was named in May as a special counsel to investigate potential collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russian officials or agents.

Among Mueller's tasks may be to examine whether Trump administration officials intentionally concealed foreign financial ties that should have been reported on the same financial disclosure form Mueller completed.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/0 ... rds-241414

[JohnStOnge]

Another thing on changing votes:

The final November 7 RealClearPolitics assessment had 15 jurisdictions with 171 Electoral votes rated as toss ups. If I looked at the final results and saw that an improbable number of those States went for Trump I'd consider that a red flag. I'd wonder if something funny went on even if I hadn't heard the lady on NPR.

But that didn't happen. Clinton won 6 of the toss up jurisdictions and Trump won 9. The closest split you could possibly get is 7 vs. 8. I'd have considered the split to be one that couldn't reasonably be accounted for by chance if it was 3 vs. 12 or wider.

That doesn't mean I KNOW nothing funny went on. But I do not think the actual outcome is inconsistent with what the polls were saying on November 7.

[Skjellyfetti]

Thanks, Mueller.

[BDKJMU]

Mueller must love fishing expeditions to give up a $3.5 million salary to go fishing for a year or two.

Zebley gave up $1.4 million salary

When special counsel Robert Mueller took his new job in May, he gave up a law firm partnership where he made almost $3.5 million since the beginning of 2016, according to a financial disclosure released by the Justice Department on Tuesday.

Mueller's client list from his former firm, WilmerHale, reads like a who's who of America's most prominent businesses, including Facebook, Apple, Intel, Sony Pictures, Booz Allen Hamilton and the National Football League.

Mueller was also on the paid-speaking circuit in recent years, addressing businesses like Goldman Sachs, charities and and lecture series, as well as lobbying groups like the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Insurance Information Institute.

Mueller's speaking engagements brought him about $162,000 since the beginning of 2016, the report says. His most lucrative speech during that period was to the Mexican bank Banamex for $52,000.

Mueller, a former FBI director, was named in May as a special counsel to investigate potential collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russian officials or agents.

Among Mueller's tasks may be to examine whether Trump administration officials intentionally concealed foreign financial ties that should have been reported on the same financial disclosure form Mueller completed.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/0 ... rds-241414

Under 3.5 million in in almost a year and a half (17 months) = a 3.5 million salary? That ASU math? Sounds more like about 200k a month/2.4 million a year.

[Skjellyfetti]

Sorry to set off your autism alarms.

He's probably making about $150k as special prosecutor. Feel free to figure out how much and quibble with me about 30-50k. Point remains, he (and others on his team) are taking a significant paycut for this fishing expedition.

[kalm]

Thanks, Mueller.

But, but, but Obama! Hillary! FDR!!!!

[BDKJMU]

Sorry to set off your autism alarms.

He's probably making about $150k as special prosecutor. Feel free to figure out how much and quibble with me about 30-50k. Point remains, he (and others on his team) are taking a significant paycut for this fishing expedition.

You're the one who used 6.93 math. Being off by over a million a year isn't quibbling about 30-50k..

[Skjellyfetti]

It's about the same proportion.

[Skjellyfetti]

FBI conducted predawn raid of former Trump campaign chairman Manafort’s home

FBI agents raided the Alexandria home of President Trump’s former campaign chairman late last month, using a search warrant to seize documents and other materials, according to people familiar with the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Federal agents appeared at Paul Manafort’s home without advance warning in the predawn hours of July 26, the day after he met voluntarily with the staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The search warrant was wide-ranging and FBI agents working with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III departed the home with various records.

The raid came as Manafort has been voluntarily producing documents to congressional committees investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The search warrant indicates investigators may have argued to a federal judge they had reason to believe Manafort could not be trusted to turn over all records in response to a grand jury subpoena.

It could also have been intended to send a message to President Trump’s former campaign chairman that he should not expect gentle treatment or legal courtesies from Mueller’s team.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... story.html

[Skjellyfetti]

Trump went after McCabe on Twitter soon after the raid.

[Pwns]

From Raw Story (meaning it's garbage), but red meat for anti Trumpies.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/longtim ... nts=disqus

[Chizzang]

From Raw Story (meaning it's garbage), but red meat for anti Trumpies.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/longtim ... nts=disqus

He'd get re-elected while in Prison...
His supporters don't care about that