Obama orders review of election-season hacking

Hopefully they can learn something to prevent it happening again in the future. I'm assuming Republicans will be on board with this, but the hacks benefited them, so they might not be. Time to put partisan politics aside and see if our enemies are trying to influence our democracy.

The White House said it would make portions of the report public and would brief lawmakers and relevant state officials on the findings.

Why the secrecy Obama? Eh, typical of your non-transparent transparency.

The only confirmed case of hacking so far has came from the Department of Homeland Security into Georgia's voter registration database.

According to a letter written by Kemp to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, the attempted intrusion occurred 1 week after the election on November 15, 2016 at 8:43AM and came from an IP address associated with DHS (216.81.81.80).

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/

Even with the recount many votes still are not "eligible" for the recount. = Instead of Russia, Obama needs to look into the USA for voter fraud. Hopefully President-Elect Trump will do something once in office about this rampant voting fraud that seems to happen in mostly Lib/Dem voting areas.

The only confirmed voter fraud this election was a trump supporter, who voted twice.

Voter fraud is a problem on the right. Not the left.

Instead of Russia, Obama needs to look into the USA for voter fraud.

It's been looked at numerous times and numerous studies are available. You also have multiple court cases where the voter fraud lie was exposed and legislation based on it has been thrown out.

Obviously all of that is not compelling evidence to you, so let's switch gears. How would you like Democrats to prove that you have a nutball theory when studies and court rulings have no impact? Can you give us an avenue to reach you?

Oh my...

Tucker Carlson destroys Dem. Congressman over supposed Russian interference in the election

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqKkWFYL7FY

Trump is suspiciously uninterested in the Russian hacking attack. Wonder why?

SuperLib: You also have multiple court cases where the voter fraud lie was exposed and legislation based on it has been thrown out.

Which 'multiple' cases, exactly?

Aren't you talking about those federal cases throwing state legislation out because 'federal law trumps state law', the federal law in question being a voter ID law passed in 1993 when the Democrats held the federal House, Senate, and Presidency (under Clinton), and

In which case how can you claim 'multiple court cases where the voter fraud lie was exposed'?

Those cases only say the weak voter ID law passed by the Democrats trumps the states' attempts at stronger voter ID laws.

You haven't listed any cases, so I'm not saying that's what you're referring to, but it would be nice if you could provide the cases.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

Why the secrecy Obama? Eh, typical of your non-transparent transparency.

Is that the RT talking point for this? It's quite normal for these types of reports to be only partially released, to be kept confidential in order to protect sources and methods and to freedom of maneuver. It'll be the same under a President Trump. Now if you want to talk about transparency, when do we get the p#$%y-grabber's Tax returns? Doesn't bode well.

Hopefully, Congress and the WH will see eye to eye that any country or countries responsible, Russia, possibly DPRK, China, must be sent the "message" that interfering with our election process is very risky action to take. Anything other action courts an escalation of these attempts next election cycle.

Funny - used to be a time when Republicans were rather suspicious of Russians, particularly when they spied (which is what hacking is). Perhaps Trump could just make a common database with Putin.

Well, seeing as these are different intelligence agencies than the ones who reported that their were WMDs minutes from launch in Iraq when the previous President asked for a 'deep dive' on that question, I guess we should take their reports as gospel. Oh, wait, they are the same agencies. Well, at they're not the ones that keep finding 'moderate opposition fighters' in Syria no matter how often they try and ship weapons to them only to find they've shipped the weapons to alQeda, so we can give their reports the benefit of the doubt. Oops, turns out they're those same agencies again.

A last ditch effort to take a final swipe at the right.

turbo: Which 'multiple' cases, exactly

Let's be clear. If I put court cases in front of you, what will the impact be? Is that evidence you will find credible? If not then obviously I won't waste my time.

One-third of precincts in Wayne County could be disqualified from an unprecedented statewide recount of presidential election results because of problems with ballots. Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month. Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662. According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand.

The number are all over the place, but 1/3 to 59% of the precincts don't have a trusted vote so they cannot be part of a recount.

Tsuchifumazu: A last ditch effort to take a final swipe at the right.

That actually made me laugh. No one is accusing the left or right of hacking. The hacking and subsequent posting on Wikileaks is apparently from foreign sources. This time around, they hacked the Democrats emails. Next time, it may be the Republicans. The question you have to ask yourself is would you be happy if was hacked during an election. If you're answer is "yes", then this investigation is a waste of time. If "no", then it needs to be done. I'm sure the incoming Trump administration is equally as keen to keep the election process free of foreign interference.

This time around, they hacked the Democrats emails.

Who's to say they haven't hacked both? They certainly won't have hesitated to hack whatever they could. May be a smart move to keep those juicy Republican or Trumpist email for the most appropriate time for maximum leverage.

Trump's going on a rampage against the CIA now, so we know what his position is. Praise Putin, attack the CIA.

A few Republicans are getting on board with the investigation which will help tremendously, but then again times have changed. Trump supporters routinely throw out evidence they don't like and replace it with Twiiter hits and YouTube videos. His army of conspiracy theorists will obviously blame Clinton. So will the "party before country" types and the uneducated. And there are just so damn many of those types of Republicans today.

They have their echo chamber so they can make reality whatever they want. The investigation will not change the election results but they can say the goal is to change the election results. The investigation isn't about showing the extent of the hacking and how it could have helped Trump get votes, but again: echo chamber. Republicans can easily tell their followers that it's a bid to overturn votes.

Then they'll turn around and hold a press conference saying elections are rigged and fraud is rampant. And the same followers will nod in agreement.

The boogeyman strikes yet again. It's incredibly arrogant to assume people were not informed enough to not vote hilary. Love it or not, the people spoke ages ago. Resurrecting cold war era tactics is quite honestly desperate. It's already fini

SuperLib: Let's be clear. If I put court cases in front of you, what will the impact be? Is that evidence you will find credible? If not then obviously I won't waste my time.

It won't switch my opinion about voter fraud just because some lawyers managed to argue a case successfully. Do I have to agree with the basis or outcome of every case?

But I think I know exactly the cases you're talking about. The ones I described, that address weak federal vs. strong states' voter ID laws, not 'disproving voter fraud'. Who knows? I might be wrong.

So if you 'put the court cases in front of me' and they are as you say, my current opinion about your post, that you are (probably innocently) misrepresenting the voter ID law cases as cases disproving voter fraud, might change.

Ok so all court cases where they threw out the ID laws claiming the officials didn't prove fraud are off the table.

But you still haven't told me what you would accept as compelling evidence so we haven't made any progress. There are statements from Republican officials where they say the new voter ID laws will help to preserve a Republican majority. OK with you or not OK? How about studies, even ones by Republicans, where they came to the conclusion that miniscule voter fraud didn't justify ID laws?

Or can you just give me some examples of types of sources that would have an impact on you?

SuperLib: Ok so all court cases where they threw out the ID laws claiming the officials didn't prove fraud are off the table.

That seems exactly the opposite of what I said.

I said show the cases you're referring to, so we can tell if they are really cases that 'disproved voter fraud', or if they're only the cases that say the weak 1993 Democratic-controlled-Senate-House-President federal voter ID law trumps the states' attempts at stronger laws, as I suspect.

How hard could it be, to show the cases you're claiming exist?

Oh I read what you wrote:

It won't switch my opinion about voter fraud just because some lawyers managed to argue a case successfully. Do I have to agree with the basis or outcome of every case?

Then you threw in some filler at the end saying I should go ahead and present the cases and it might change your mind.

Also, I'm a bit confused. You are the one making the claim of voter fraud. It's up to you to prove it, not me. What I can do is provide a long list of testimony showing any fraud is negligible and almost always explained by voter or worker error.

Here's a good starter for you: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2014/04/29/Wisconsin_voter_ID_ruling.pdf

North Carolina will be next. It lists out in painstaking detail the motivation for voter ID laws, which is to reduce participation by Democrats in our democracy.

I was chatting politics with my co-workers just 2 days ago and the point was brought up, "Just how far is the GOP willing to go to hold onto power?"

An even worse prospect is the GOP wouldn't be beyond instigating such a thing as tampering with all parts of the election just to get control. Which in itself is extremely disturbing and about as un-American un-constitutional as one can get.

Have to wait and see and trust the results.... although trust seems be exceptionally difficult for me these days.

That's exactly what it's about, HD. The GOP cannot expand their base and the younger generation skews blue, so they only card they have left to play is changing the system so the minority party can stay in power.

America shouldn't blame everything on a Russian conspiracy like Russia blames everything on a Western conspiracy (including the widespread doping allegation).

Whether it's the Russians or not, all the election hackings still have to be investigated regardless because some ones or some groups still did the deed - and if any election in the US doesn't want hackings like that again, they have to discover as much information as possible.

But if they put their heads in the sand like ostriches, then they won't learn anything, and it'll keep happening again and again.

Also, I'm a bit confused. You are the one making the claim of voter fraud. It's up to you to prove it, not me. What I can do is provide a long list of testimony showing any fraud is negligible and almost always explained by voter or worker error.

Indeed these cases that put the lie to these claims of widespread voter fraud are actually pretty easy to find for anyone who's honestly interested. It takes less than a minute.

Also easy to find... evidence of voter suppression.

Indeed these cases that put the lie to these claims of widespread voter fraud are actually pretty easy to find for anyone who's honestly interested. It takes less than a minute.

Too much work for the post-truthers.

Moderator: There is no such expression as post-truther. Please do not use it again.

Oh my...

Judge Jeanine: The election is over, Mr. President

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=conn5wl_QMY

SuperLib: Also, I'm a bit confused. You are the one making the claim of voter fraud. It's up to you to prove it, not me. What I can do is provide a long list of testimony showing any fraud is negligible and almost always explained by voter or worker error. ... Here's a good starter for you: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2014/04/29/Wisconsin_voter_ID_ruling.pdf

You're the one claiming court cases exist proving voter fraud doesn't exist. It should be easy for you to show them.

The following quotes are what are under discussion. Voter fraud, not voter ID laws.

badsey3: Instead of Russia, Obama needs to look into the USA for voter fraud.

SuperLib: It's been looked at numerous times and numerous studies are available. You also have multiple court cases where the voter fraud lie was exposed and legislation based on it has been thrown out.

The 'Frank v Walker' Wisconsin voter ID case (at your link) was stayed on appeal, and so didn't even apply to the November elections in Wisconsin. And that's where it's stuck at, currently. Not law, not applicable to anything, and not proven. Status of the case is included on this Sept. chart:

http://www.wiscontext.org/visualizing-wisconsins-voter-id-lawsuits-so-far

Sept. 26, 2016 - Visualizing Wisconsin's Voter ID Lawsuits So Far (graphic)

Also, "constitutional scholars" have complained about Judge Adelman's ruling. Apparently it ignores precedents already declared by the US Supreme Court, and is expected to fail when it reaches the Supreme Court, assuming the court isn't still split 4-4 then, in which case it would make it through on a bye: http://watchdog.org/272750/voter-id-constitution-district-court/ : "August 8, 2016 - Some constitutional experts are calling absurd and in violation of established Supreme Court precedent the two District Court decisions Attorney General Brad Schimel is appealing. ..."

Also, Judge Adelman's ruling is one district judge declaring a ruling in a district covering (half?) of one state out of 50, and buried in that ruling on voter ID is the judge's opinion that the state hasn't proved its view that one form of voter fraud, impersonation of voters in in-person voting, has or could take place.

One or two paragraphs of one judge's opinion, relating only to a fraction of what we are discussing, which judge is ruling from a district constituting only a fraction of the country (half of 1/50 = 1/100), which paragraphs are buried in a multi-page ruling on a different topic than what we are discussing, which ruling hasn't even been upheld yet, but is on stay, pending appeal?

So how does that prove "the voter fraud lie was exposed"?

It's very suspicious that supposedly "patriotic" Repubs are so happy to see America violated in the most humiliating way possible by an old rival. One must begin to question their loyalties and ask exactly how big this attack is

Turbo, you obviously didn't read the link. Time for me to go!

SuperLib: Turbo, you obviously didn't read the link. Time for me to go!

You obviously just posted a link to a single unresolved court case in a district composing 1/2 of 1 of the 50 states, which describes only one avenue of voter fraud, and posted it without actually explaining how it proves that 'voter fraud doesn't exist in the USA', and can't address my detailed counterpoints to your choice of link. Bye bye!