Discussion:
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
(too old to reply)
BOZ
2017-05-05 23:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde


Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.

The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
election was NOT HACKED.” (Emphasis in original.) It added:
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”

The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.

Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
coming-out party in the 2000 Democratic primary in Arizona:

In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.

The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.

How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?

Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
reported on November 18, 1960:

Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.

The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.

With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht told The New American:

Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.

Engelbrecht added:

Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.

Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.

Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?

Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.

University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
Matt Bernard were quick to point out in their presentation Recount 2016:
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.

Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.

Was There Tampering With the Totals?

This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.

Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.

The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.

For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."

While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Robert Harris
2017-05-07 00:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
John McAdams
2017-05-07 00:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
I ban posts that, just out of the blue, oppose or support Trump. Or
for that matter, Clinton.

But often somebody sneaks in a post about Trump under the guise of
talking about the assassination.

You need to look back at what I've approved. There are a lot of posts
about the 2016 election, pro- and anti-Trump, on the newsgroup.

So I approved this one.

Did you object when I let Mainframe blame the Trump victory on
Gerrymandering?
Post by Robert Harris
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-08 20:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
I ban posts that, just out of the blue, oppose or support Trump. Or
for that matter, Clinton.
You ban posts that conflict with your political beliefs. I'm sure that if
I praised Trump for passing health care you would let it slide. In my past
messages I had to sneak Trump in by stipulating that he was not the grassy
knoll shooter.
Post by John McAdams
But often somebody sneaks in a post about Trump under the guise of
talking about the assassination.
You need to look back at what I've approved. There are a lot of posts
about the 2016 election, pro- and anti-Trump, on the newsgroup.
So I approved this one.
Did you object when I let Mainframe blame the Trump victory on
Gerrymandering?
Post by Robert Harris
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton?s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump?s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ?The November 2016
?No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ?No
voter registration data was modified or deleted? and,
?Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.?
The NASS report cited the states? ?highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process? as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting?s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks ? denial of service and password-guessing
? all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump?s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states ? but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn?t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones? Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska?s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don?t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article ?American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2017-05-08 01:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
I posted it because of "1960 when there were credible doubts about the
election of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson."
bigdog
2017-05-08 21:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
I posted it because of "1960 when there were credible doubts about the
election of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson."
That was the year the Republicans accused the Democrats of cheating better
than them in Illinois.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 00:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
The NASS report cited the states??? ???highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process??? as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting???s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks ??? denial of service and password-guessing
??? all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump???s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states ??? but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn???t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones??? Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska???s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don???t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article ???American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
I posted it because of "1960 when there were credible doubts about the
election of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson."
I can confirm that there was no Russian hacking of the Presidential
election in 1960. Yes, there was tons of voter fraud. Dead people voting,
some people voting 5 times and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake votes.
So much that Nixon wanted to take it to court, but Eisenhower talked him
out of it for the good of the country. I have often asked how things would
have happened if Nixon had been elected. How would he have handled the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Would he have used nuclear bombs? Or maybe there
would never have been a Cuban Missile Crisis because his invasion of Cuba
in 1961 would not have been at the Bay of Pigs and he would have used US
jets and bombers and then sent in the Marines.
claviger
2017-05-10 15:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
I can confirm that there was no Russian hacking of the Presidential
election in 1960. Yes, there was tons of voter fraud. Dead people voting,
some people voting 5 times and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake votes.
So much that Nixon wanted to take it to court, but Eisenhower talked him
out of it for the good of the country. I have often asked how things would
have happened if Nixon had been elected. How would he have handled the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Would he have used nuclear bombs? Or maybe there
would never have been a Cuban Missile Crisis because his invasion of Cuba
in 1961 would not have been at the Bay of Pigs and he would have used US
jets and bombers and then sent in the Marines.
Yes, all the hacking was homegrown right here in the good ole USA.
Chicago hacked the winning margin for the Democratic candidate. I doubt
JFK ever knew but what an exciting time when he and Jackie were in the
Whitehouse. It turned out to be a good thing that Castro stayed in power
long enough to prove beyond any doubt that Marxist economies don't work.
The Cuban economy was a disaster the whole time Castro was in power.
Even the Soviets gave up on Cuba. A Castro copycat wannabe just ruined
beautiful Venezuela in less than a decade in power.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 13:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I can confirm that there was no Russian hacking of the Presidential
election in 1960. Yes, there was tons of voter fraud. Dead people voting,
some people voting 5 times and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake votes.
So much that Nixon wanted to take it to court, but Eisenhower talked him
out of it for the good of the country. I have often asked how things would
have happened if Nixon had been elected. How would he have handled the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Would he have used nuclear bombs? Or maybe there
would never have been a Cuban Missile Crisis because his invasion of Cuba
in 1961 would not have been at the Bay of Pigs and he would have used US
jets and bombers and then sent in the Marines.
Yes, all the hacking was homegrown right here in the good ole USA.
Chicago hacked the winning margin for the Democratic candidate. I doubt
JFK ever knew but what an exciting time when he and Jackie were in the
Whitehouse. It turned out to be a good thing that Castro stayed in power
long enough to prove beyond any doubt that Marxist economies don't work.
You needed Castro to tell you that? And the US leading boycotts,
sanctions and sabotage had nothing to do with it?
Post by claviger
The Cuban economy was a disaster the whole time Castro was in power.
Even the Soviets gave up on Cuba. A Castro copycat wannabe just ruined
beautiful Venezuela in less than a decade in power.
It always does.
claviger
2017-05-12 19:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I can confirm that there was no Russian hacking of the Presidential
election in 1960. Yes, there was tons of voter fraud. Dead people voting,
some people voting 5 times and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake votes.
So much that Nixon wanted to take it to court, but Eisenhower talked him
out of it for the good of the country. I have often asked how things would
have happened if Nixon had been elected. How would he have handled the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Would he have used nuclear bombs? Or maybe there
would never have been a Cuban Missile Crisis because his invasion of Cuba
in 1961 would not have been at the Bay of Pigs and he would have used US
jets and bombers and then sent in the Marines.
Yes, all the hacking was homegrown right here in the good ole USA.
Chicago hacked the winning margin for the Democratic candidate. I doubt
JFK ever knew but what an exciting time when he and Jackie were in the
Whitehouse. It turned out to be a good thing that Castro stayed in power
long enough to prove beyond any doubt that Marxist economies don't work.
You needed Castro to tell you that? And the US leading boycotts,
sanctions and sabotage had nothing to do with it?
Where is the international law that requires a nation to trade with a
bellicose enemy?

The sabotage was unnecessary based on inherent defects of Marxist
economies. I believe JFK finally shut that part down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Cuban economy was a disaster the whole time Castro was in power.
Even the Soviets gave up on Cuba. A Castro copycat wannabe just ruined
beautiful Venezuela in less than a decade in power.
It always does.
Marxist Socialism reduces economic productivity to the lowest common
denominator.

In Venezuela they are down to 4 hours a day of electricity. That alone
cut their economy in half. Large companies are considering moving to more
stable countries.

There used to be a commercial "When your out of Schlitz, you're out of
beer!" In Venezuela that has become a reality, not a slogan.
https://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2016/04/25/polar-venezuela-halt-beer-production/
mainframetech
2017-05-07 00:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-07 21:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.

Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.

That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 01:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
False. They left their fingerprints. Cyrillic alphabet and code they had
used before.
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
You need to watch White Collar.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
No cover-up lasts forever.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
So you want us to reveal classified information so that you can use it
to do your own hacking?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
No.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
No hacking of the polls was successful.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
She won the popular vote because more Americans like her than Trump.
Live with it.
Post by bigdog
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
mainframetech
2017-05-09 14:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work. In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
bigdog
2017-05-10 16:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century. How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 02:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
Straw Man argument. No one claimed that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
So you want us to tell you how the Russians hack so that you can do it
yourself? Do you have a super-computer in your basement?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
Drivel. No one said hundreds of machines were hacked.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
It is more important to know how many African-Americans were denied
their Constitutional right to vote by the corrupt Republicans.
You just admitted that they are Americans, so why should you be allowed
to deny them their right to vote just because they are black>?
Post by bigdog
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
Nonsense. People changed their minds after Comey scared them.
Post by bigdog
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
Trump was surprised and unprepared when he won.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
Possibilities, not theories.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
They can be hacked. But they weren't and no votes were changed.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
It's not the chip. It's the software. But you can install a bogus chip
physically, just as they used to stuff ballots physically.
Post by bigdog
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
The computers know. You only want to shift the results within the margin
of error.
Post by bigdog
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century. How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
Votes have to be collated.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Bipartisan? Is that a joke?
Republican is not bipartisan.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
So what? Eventually the votes have to be collated and reported. You can
just intercept that process and change the results.
mainframetech
2017-05-11 17:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both. Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering. Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them.. They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made. If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.

When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.

Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want, for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election. I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking as involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored, and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
WRONG as usual! I've given complete instructions for determining if
vote counting was hacked. You may not have understood them, but they were
complete.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
WRONG! And I've shown you above how those machines can be hacked.
They can be hacked BEFORE certification, and during certification they
will perform normally. They are then sealed until the election, which is
on a specific date, and when voting starts for real, the hacked code takes
over and modifies counts as it was programmed. When voting is done, the
hacked code erases itself, leaving the normal code, and no one is the
wiser.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
Of course! It is believed that it has already happened and let a guy
become a senator when he wasn't favored and was unknown. By changing the
base chip, all chips made from that model will be changed and inserting
them in all machines hacks all machines in effect.

And remember, you've been handed a load of crap if someone tells you
that all machines are now protected. Many machines all over the US are
still old types for lack of money, and they are easily hacked. there have
been many demonstrations by computer science classes from colleges
demonstrating hacking of election machines.
Post by bigdog
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century.
WRONG! And you say you're a programmer. Sheesh! How did the US
hackers know they were hacking the Iranian centrifuges? It lasted for a
years or more and slowed them down to nothing in their project to make
nuclear devices.

https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/

That sample is not the method I described above, but it's one more
method that can be used. All computing machinery identifies itself by
some code or reaction to polling from the CPU or other element. Many give
back information about themselves when polled, when a call goes out for
devices to report.
Post by bigdog
How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
WRONG! Don't be so foolish. You've already tried that escape and I've
answered. The machine has to have a list of its 'slots' and which count
goes to which candidate, otherwise you'd get counts added to all the wrong
candidates. The machine HAS to know which slot to add to when a vote
comes in. So your rotating method doesn't help anything.
Post by bigdog
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
WRONG Again. You don't seem to have even the slightest programming
knowledge at all. Hacked code can be put into a chip and stay quiet and
not take any action during testing. And the election will be on a
specific date, which can then 'wake up' the hacked code to do its thing.
At the close of voting, the hacked code then erases itself and it's all
done.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
WRONG! See above where I answered that for the second time.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-12 00:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
Post by mainframetech
Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them..
So how could these hackers know that the major party candidates in 2016
would be Trump and Hillary and how did they know which candidate would be
assigned to which slot on the voting machines, especially since that slot
gets rotated from one machine to the next. This is where your lack of
specifics gets exposed.
Post by mainframetech
They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made.
To do that, one would have to know which candidate is going to be assigned
to which slot at the time the chips were hacked. How could they possibly
know that, especially since the position of the candidates on each machine
is varied from one machine to the next?
Post by mainframetech
If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.
Unless the hackers knew which candidate was assigned to which slot, they
couldn't possibly know which slot to take votes from and give to another
slot.
Post by mainframetech
When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.
All this presupposes the hackers knew which candidate was in which slot,
something they couldn't possibly know prior to the boards of elections
testing the machines and then assigning the candidates to the specific
slots on the machines, slots that vary from one machine to the next.
Post by mainframetech
Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
I've described the safeguards that are in effect to thwart your
theoretical hackers. If you can explain how your hackers could get around
those safeguards, I will be impressed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
What you describe couldn't defeat the safeguards because it requires the
hackers to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want,
Because you can't.
Post by mainframetech
for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election.
You come up with some of your funniest lines when you get backed into a
corner.
Post by mainframetech
I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
You still haven't explained how a hacker could know which slots to take
votes from and give to a candidate in another slot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking as involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored,
What about the ones who lie?
Post by mainframetech
and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
How would you know how many people would lie. Lots of people don't think
it's anybody's business whom they voted for. And they are right.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
WRONG as usual! I've given complete instructions for determining if
vote counting was hacked. You may not have understood them, but they were
complete.
As usual, those instructions were FUBAR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
WRONG! And I've shown you above how those machines can be hacked.
They can be hacked BEFORE certification, and during certification they
will perform normally. They are then sealed until the election, which is
on a specific date, and when voting starts for real, the hacked code takes
over and modifies counts as it was programmed. When voting is done, the
hacked code erases itself, leaving the normal code, and no one is the
wiser.
Same old question. How do they hackers know which slot to take votes from
and which slot to add votes to?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
Of course! It is believed that it has already happened and let a guy
become a senator when he wasn't favored and was unknown.
So the hackers knew before the machines ever left the factory which slot
that senator's name would be assigned to on all the various machines. How
could they know that?
Post by mainframetech
By changing the
base chip, all chips made from that model will be changed and inserting
them in all machines hacks all machines in effect.
So let's take this past election as an example. Each county decides what
method of voting will be used (machine, paper ballot, punch card, etc). If
the choose a machine each county chooses which manufacturer they will buy
their machines from and that can vary from one county to the next. In
addition those machines get used over and over, election after election.
So let's say my county purchased new machines right after the 2008
elections. If the machines were hacked at the factory, that would have
been done in late 2008 or early 2009 prior to them being delivered to my
county's board of election. In a typical year there would two elections a
year. Prior to each election, the machines are tested. So if they have
already been hacked, that means in each election, the chip is taking votes
from one slot and giving them to another. That could mean in one election
it could be stealing votes from on school board candidate and giving it to
another. In the next election it could be taking votes in favor of a tax
levy and changing them to votes against the levy. Each election different
candidates or issues are assigned to the various slots. In 2009 when you
imagine this hacking was done, how would the hackers know to change votes
for Hillary in slot 1 to Trump votes in slot 2? If that was done, how
would that not be revealed during testing? If that was done, that would
mean on the next machine where Trump is in slot 1 and Hillary is in slot
2, it would be stealing votes from Trump and giving them to Hillary.
Post by mainframetech
And remember, you've been handed a load of crap if someone tells you
that all machines are now protected. Many machines all over the US are
still old types for lack of money, and they are easily hacked. there have
been many demonstrations by computer science classes from colleges
demonstrating hacking of election machines.
Well if there have been many, you should have no trouble coming up with
one or two specific ones.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century.
WRONG! And you say you're a programmer. Sheesh! How did the US
hackers know they were hacking the Iranian centrifuges? It lasted for a
years or more and slowed them down to nothing in their project to make
nuclear devices.
How did the hackers at the factory know when they hacked the chip which
candidate would be assigned to which slot during the 2016 Presidential
election? That's a vital piece of information they would need to steal
votes from one candidate and give to another. That's the $64,000 question.
I'll bet you don't have a $64,000 answer.
Post by mainframetech
https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/
That sample is not the method I described above, but it's one more
method that can be used. All computing machinery identifies itself by
some code or reaction to polling from the CPU or other element. Many give
back information about themselves when polled, when a call goes out for
devices to report.
Post by bigdog
How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
WRONG! Don't be so foolish. You've already tried that escape and I've
answered. The machine has to have a list of its 'slots' and which count
goes to which candidate, otherwise you'd get counts added to all the wrong
candidates. The machine HAS to know which slot to add to when a vote
comes in. So your rotating method doesn't help anything.
All the machine knows is which slot the voter voted for. The machine
doesn't know which candidate any of the slots are assigned to. In that
regard they are no different than the mechanical voting machines used for
over a century in this country.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
WRONG Again. You don't seem to have even the slightest programming
knowledge at all. Hacked code can be put into a chip and stay quiet and
not take any action during testing. And the election will be on a
specific date, which can then 'wake up' the hacked code to do its thing.
At the close of voting, the hacked code then erases itself and it's all
done.
So if a machine was manufactured in 2010, you think it had a piece of code
in the chip which would tell it in 2016 to steal votes from slot 1 and
give it to the candidate in slot 2 even though no one would know at that
time who was going to be in slot 1 and who was going to be in slot 2.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
WRONG! See above where I answered that for the second time.
The one question you have consistently dodge is how the hackers could
possibly know which slot to steal votes from and give to a candidate in
another slot. Without that knowledge, there is no way to hack the machines
to steal votes unless you want to do it blindly without knowing who you
are stealing votes from and who you are giving them to.
mainframetech
2017-05-13 02:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
WRONG again! Polls taken at the exiting from voting are better and
closer to the vote itself, and more correct. And it comes from the voters
themselves.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
WRONG, and that has been explained to you. Hacker code can be present
in the machine and not take any action until the date of the election or
some other trigger. Until then, the hacker code remains dormant. It will
test just fine like the original code. When the election starts, the
trigger goes off and the hacker code takes over until the end of the
election, when the hacker code deletes itself, leaving nothing to find.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them.
So how could these hackers know that the major party candidates in 2016
would be Trump and Hillary and how did they know which candidate would be
assigned to which slot on the voting machines, especially since that slot
gets rotated from one machine to the next. This is where your lack of
specifics gets exposed.
Why do you keep thinking the Trump election had the voting machines
hacked? There's no proof of that. Each machine has to know which buckets
are for which vote. therefore the answer is already in the machine. It
doesn't matter which slot is assigned in any one machine, as long as the
machine knows which slot a vote goes into, the hacker code can put the
vote where it wants for whoever it was programmed for. That's the fourth
time I've explained that, so you're entering your repetitive phase where
you have no clue and just keep asking the same questions over and over.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made.
To do that, one would have to know which candidate is going to be assigned
to which slot at the time the chips were hacked. How could they possibly
know that, especially since the position of the candidates on each machine
is varied from one machine to the next?
WRONG! You're asking the same question you just asked a few lines
above. I'm not explaining it a fifth time.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.
Unless the hackers knew which candidate was assigned to which slot, they
couldn't possibly know which slot to take votes from and give to another
slot.
WRONG! Don't start that rotating slot crap again. That will be the
6th time. You really just can't understand about computers, can you?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.
All this presupposes the hackers knew which candidate was in which slot,
something they couldn't possibly know prior to the boards of elections
testing the machines and then assigning the candidates to the specific
slots on the machines, slots that vary from one machine to the next.
WRONG! That's the seventh time you are getting into the rotating slot
foolishness. See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
I've described the safeguards that are in effect to thwart your
theoretical hackers. If you can explain how your hackers could get around
those safeguards, I will be impressed.
WRONG! I've already done that with your rotating slots, and your
certified sealed machines. So now you must be impressed! But remember,
many hackers have shown the holes in the machines up to now. And many
states can't afford to buy new machines yet, the cost is too great, so
they're making do with the old easily hacked machines. Of course you're
not worried, since you know they're impervious to hacking.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
What you describe couldn't defeat the safeguards because it requires the
hackers to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.
WRONG! And now you're going to ask me for the eighth time about
rotating slots, aren't you? That was answered above. That the ninth
time.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want,
Because you can't.
Post by mainframetech
for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election.
You come up with some of your funniest lines when you get backed into a
corner.
I've given answers that any average programmer could understand.
You're not a programmer, and so it makes no sense to you. And you think
I've left something out, because you just can't understand what's been
said already.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
You still haven't explained how a hacker could know which slots to take
votes from and give to a candidate in another slot.
That was asked nine times so far, and explained by me at least 4 of
those times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking was involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored,
What about the ones who lie?
Post by mainframetech
and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
How would you know how many people would lie. Lots of people don't think
it's anybody's business whom they voted for. And they are right.
WRONG! You've arrived at the point where you know you're in the
corner and have started your nitpicking phase. It won't help. The exit
polls tell the tale if there's hacking of the vote counts. For further
elucidation I suggest to examine the website of Bev Harris,
www.blackboxvoting.org
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
WRONG as usual! I've given complete instructions for determining if
vote counting was hacked. You may not have understood them, but they were
complete.
As usual, those instructions were FUBAR.
LOL! Only because you weren't able to understand them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
WRONG! And I've shown you above how those machines can be hacked.
They can be hacked BEFORE certification, and during certification they
will perform normally. They are then sealed until the election, which is
on a specific date, and when voting starts for real, the hacked code takes
over and modifies counts as it was programmed. When voting is done, the
hacked code erases itself, leaving the normal code, and no one is the
wiser.
Same old question. How do they hackers know which slot to take votes from
and which slot to add votes to?
WRONG! That's the 10th time you've asked that. Se above for the
answer.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
Of course! It is believed that it has already happened and let a guy
become a senator when he wasn't favored and was unknown.
So the hackers knew before the machines ever left the factory which slot
that senator's name would be assigned to on all the various machines. How
could they know that?
WRONG! Your silly little rotating slots game wasn't used back then,
but the senator owned the company that made the election machines in his
state. It is believed he had his own people do the hacking of the chips.
It was early in the electronic voting machine period.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By changing the
base chip, all chips made from that model will be changed and inserting
them in all machines hacks all machines in effect.
So let's take this past election as an example. Each county decides what
method of voting will be used (machine, paper ballot, punch card, etc). If
the choose a machine each county chooses which manufacturer they will buy
their machines from and that can vary from one county to the next.
WRONG! Often a state buys machines, and the county just uses what they
are given.
Post by bigdog
In
addition those machines get used over and over, election after election.
So let's say my county purchased new machines right after the 2008
elections. If the machines were hacked at the factory, that would have
been done in late 2008 or early 2009 prior to them being delivered to my
county's board of election. In a typical year there would two elections a
year. Prior to each election, the machines are tested. So if they have
already been hacked, that means in each election, the chip is taking votes
from one slot and giving them to another.
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell you were ever a programmer. When
machines are manufactured they are made with a method to modify them
easily for each election. That is often by inserting chips with the right
information for the upcoming election in them. Each time an election
comes up, someone has to make a chip or board with information on it, and
probably patch code for any errors discovered since the last usage. By
adding code to them at that time, you've accomplished hacking all the
machines for that election.
Post by bigdog
That could mean in one election
it could be stealing votes from on school board candidate and giving it to
another. In the next election it could be taking votes in favor of a tax
levy and changing them to votes against the levy. Each election different
candidates or issues are assigned to the various slots. In 2009 when you
imagine this hacking was done, how would the hackers know to change votes
for Hillary in slot 1 to Trump votes in slot 2?
WRONG! I don't imagine any hacking has been done, but the method I've
outlined here will handle every election.
Post by bigdog
If that was done, how
would that not be revealed during testing? If that was done, that would
mean on the next machine where Trump is in slot 1 and Hillary is in slot
2, it would be stealing votes from Trump and giving them to Hillary.
WRONG! That's the eleventh time you've asked that. See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, you've been handed a load of crap if someone tells you
that all machines are now protected. Many machines all over the US are
still old types for lack of money, and they are easily hacked. there have
been many demonstrations by computer science classes from colleges
demonstrating hacking of election machines.
Well if there have been many, you should have no trouble coming up with
one or two specific ones.
You mean specific hacks? I've done that already. If you didn't
understand, them as I said, you were never a programmer.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century.
WRONG! And you say you're a programmer. Sheesh! How did the US
hackers know they were hacking the Iranian centrifuges? It lasted for a
years or more and slowed them down to nothing in their project to make
nuclear devices.
How did the hackers at the factory know when they hacked the chip which
candidate would be assigned to which slot during the 2016 Presidential
election? That's a vital piece of information they would need to steal
votes from one candidate and give to another. That's the $64,000 question.
I'll bet you don't have a $64,000 answer.
WRONG! That's the twelfth time you've asked about the rotating slots.
See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/
That sample is not the method I described above, but it's one more
method that can be used. All computing machinery identifies itself by
some code or reaction to polling from the CPU or other element. Many give
back information about themselves when polled, when a call goes out for
devices to report. On PCs it is handled by the USB chains or plug 'n play, or you need to specify the devices that are attached in the I/O section, which you can get to during boot up.
Post by bigdog
How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
WRONG! Don't be so foolish. You've already tried that escape and I've
answered. The machine has to have a list of its 'slots' and which count
goes to which candidate, otherwise you'd get counts added to all the wrong
candidates. The machine HAS to know which slot to add to when a vote
comes in. So your rotating method doesn't help anything.
All the machine knows is which slot the voter voted for. The machine
doesn't know which candidate any of the slots are assigned to. In that
regard they are no different than the mechanical voting machines used for
over a century in this country.
A voter doesn't vote for a slot, they vote for a name that is assigned
to some slot internally. They see the name and they hit the button or
touch the icon. That is recognized by the machine and the machine has to
know which slot is for which candidate so it can add it to the right
'slot'. That knowledge is there for the hacker code to use in determining
which 'slot' to add to incorrectly. Now that's the thirteenth time, and
the fifth time I've explained that the rotating slots of yours aren't
going ot work against hacker code.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
WRONG Again. You don't seem to have even the slightest programming
knowledge at all. Hacked code can be put into a chip and stay quiet and
not take any action during testing. And the election will be on a
specific date, which can then 'wake up' the hacked code to do its thing.
At the close of voting, the hacked code then erases itself and it's all
done.
So if a machine was manufactured in 2010, you think it had a piece of code
in the chip which would tell it in 2016 to steal votes from slot 1 and
give it to the candidate in slot 2 even though no one would know at that
time who was going to be in slot 1 and who was going to be in slot 2.
WRONG! Stop with the stupid slots! And before any election, hacker
code has to be added to the chip to change votes from one name to another.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
WRONG! See above where I answered that for the second time.
The one question you have consistently dodge is how the hackers could
possibly know which slot to steal votes from and give to a candidate in
another slot. Without that knowledge, there is no way to hack the machines
to steal votes unless you want to do it blindly without knowing who you
are stealing votes from and who you are giving them to.
Consistently I've heard that question from you about 13 times. I've
answered it above about 5 times. That will have to do. Only a programmer
would understand my answer anyway.

Chris
mainframetech
2017-05-09 14:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
FACE THE MUSIC YOURSELF. YOU HAVE FAILED AT EVERYTHING YOU'VE TRIED TO
ARGUE OUT ON THE JFK CASE. YOU'RE ANGRY AT YOURSELF, BUT NEED TO BLAME
SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT THE FAILURE. I'M
THE CONSTANT REMINDER OF YOUR FAILURE, AND SO YOU HAVE TO TRY TO UNLOAD ON
ME, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.

It's OK, I understand. Take a deep breath and let it out and go on
about your business of pretending you're the wisest of the denizens of
this forum. And peruse the above info to see how to hack an election.
bigdog
2017-05-10 16:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
FACE THE MUSIC YOURSELF. YOU HAVE FAILED AT EVERYTHING YOU'VE TRIED TO
ARGUE OUT ON THE JFK CASE. YOU'RE ANGRY AT YOURSELF, BUT NEED TO BLAME
SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT THE FAILURE. I'M
THE CONSTANT REMINDER OF YOUR FAILURE, AND SO YOU HAVE TO TRY TO UNLOAD ON
ME, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.
Are you using Rossley's machine. The CAPS LOCK key seems to be stuck.
Post by mainframetech
It's OK, I understand. Take a deep breath and let it out and go on
about your business of pretending you're the wisest of the denizens of
this forum. And peruse the above info to see how to hack an election.
I'm not the one who just went on an uncontrolled rant ala Steven Colbert.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 02:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.???
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states??? ???highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process??? as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting???s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks ??? denial of service and password-guessing
??? all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump???s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states ??? but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn???t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones??? Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska???s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are ???highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process???. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don???t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article ???American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
FACE THE MUSIC YOURSELF. YOU HAVE FAILED AT EVERYTHING YOU'VE TRIED TO
ARGUE OUT ON THE JFK CASE. YOU'RE ANGRY AT YOURSELF, BUT NEED TO BLAME
SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT THE FAILURE. I'M
THE CONSTANT REMINDER OF YOUR FAILURE, AND SO YOU HAVE TO TRY TO UNLOAD ON
ME, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.
Are you using Rossley's machine. The CAPS LOCK key seems to be stuck.
ALL CAPS is SHOUTING on the InterNet. In Rossley's case it's a physical
disability. In the other case it's a mental disability. He thinks the
louder he shouts the more true it becomes.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's OK, I understand. Take a deep breath and let it out and go on
about your business of pretending you're the wisest of the denizens of
this forum. And peruse the above info to see how to hack an election.
I'm not the one who just went on an uncontrolled rant ala Steven Colbert.
Is that meant as an anti-Liberal attack from the Alt-Right?
mainframetech
2017-05-11 17:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
FACE THE MUSIC YOURSELF. YOU HAVE FAILED AT EVERYTHING YOU'VE TRIED TO
ARGUE OUT ON THE JFK CASE. YOU'RE ANGRY AT YOURSELF, BUT NEED TO BLAME
SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT THE FAILURE. I'M
THE CONSTANT REMINDER OF YOUR FAILURE, AND SO YOU HAVE TO TRY TO UNLOAD ON
ME, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.
Are you using Rossley's machine. The CAPS LOCK key seems to be stuck.
Post by mainframetech
It's OK, I understand. Take a deep breath and let it out and go on
about your business of pretending you're the wisest of the denizens of
this forum. And peruse the above info to see how to hack an election.
I'm not the one who just went on an uncontrolled rant ala Steven Colbert.
WRONG! Apparently you're unable to notice that after being angry at
your ridiculous comments, I immediately calmed down because I appreciate
how hard it is for you to be wrong so often, when you have an overriding
need to be right publicly.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-07 02:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Straw Man argument. No one claimed that the Russians hacked the voting
booths and changed any votes. The Russian hacking too place BEFORE the
election and only leaked Democratic documents.
Post by BOZ
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
claviger
2017-05-07 21:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
bigdog
2017-05-08 20:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
Didn't you get the memo? Nothing bad that happens is ever the fault of the
Clintons.

The Russians were hacking the DNC because like most people they thought
Hillary was going to win and they thought they might dig up something they
could later use against her. I think they were probably as surprised as
most people that Trump won. Had they known that would happen, they
probably would have hacked his email too.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 02:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
Didn't you get the memo? Nothing bad that happens is ever the fault of the
Clintons.
The Russians were hacking the DNC because like most people they thought
Hillary was going to win and they thought they might dig up something they
could later use against her. I think they were probably as surprised as
most people that Trump won. Had they known that would happen, they
probably would have hacked his email too.
That's what they said. They did not know that they would get some extra
help from inside the US, Comey.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 01:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election. A combination
of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help tip the election
for Trump.
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server. Others have had the same type of private
server and they weren't arrested. It was a stupid mistake.
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play? There are
many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent? Did you suggest the same thing
about working with Hitler in 1937?
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
John McAdams
2017-05-09 01:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8 May 2017 21:14:21 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
That's about the most silly statement I've seen today.

And as moderator of this newsgroup, that's saying a lot!

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-10 02:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 8 May 2017 21:14:21 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
That's about the most silly statement I've seen today.
And as moderator of this newsgroup, that's saying a lot!
You don't get out much do you?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2017-05-10 16:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election.
So Republicans stole the election not the Russians. That's a relief.
How did Republicans steal the election? Did they make it easy for non
citizens to vote like they do in California? Did a bunch of Russian
tourists vote somewhere we don't know about?
Post by Anthony Marsh
A combination of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help
tip the election for Trump.
Comey tried hard to hideout until the election was over but that didn't
work. He had to answer questions under oath and still did a good job of
equivocating.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Did what? Who were they?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
So YOU know the inside story on Benghazi?! That means you have
connections with the CIA. I've suspected that for a long time because you
always claim to have information the general public doesn't know.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server.
Yes it was by US State Department Regulations.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Others have had the same type of private server and they weren't
arrested.
So two wrongs make a right? Very original of you to come with that
kindergarten excuse.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was a stupid mistake.
It cost her the election because the common people realized she was
incredibly stupid, careless, and arrogant. A real bad combination. One
obvious questions came up, if the Russians did hack her server could they
blackmail her if elected president?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play?
What about it? No personal attacks on Trump?! Questions of pay for play
surfaced with the Clinton Foundation World Tour at taxpayer's expense when
Hillary was pretending to be Secretary of State so she could get free
airfare and rack up bonus points.
Post by Anthony Marsh
There are many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
You can ask Hillary the same question. While she was dodging the press
for 9 months Trump was getting all the face time coverage, good and bad.
Old saying in politics: "Don't care what you say about me just spell my
name right." The worst problem for a politician is to be ignored.
Hillary ignored the media so in effect she ignored potential voters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent?
I talked to a Russian once. Guess I violated the Logan Act. I just
couldn't help myself. She was a beautiful woman and I gave her money too.
Had no choice, she was my waitress at a popular steakhouse here in the
USA.

As for a better relationship with Russia wasn't that what the JFK speech
at American University was all about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20130304_JFK_AU_Speech_Legacy.cfm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you suggest the same thing about working with Hitler in 1937?
No I wasn't born yet but JFK's dad was Ambassador to Great Britain. He
supported appeasement with the aggressive new German Chancellor who was
taking a bellicose attitude toward the Allies. The reason Witt was at the
parade pumping his umbrella up and down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
No, she was a SoS on the make for foreign contributions to the Clinton
Foundation. As to US foreign policy what President would not want a
better relationship with Russia? It was JFK who set that peace initiative
in motion. RR kept the momentum going with Gorbachev. If Hillary was
being tough on Putin why approve the uranium deal? Obviously she was
sending a message it's time to play ball with each other.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
So tell me she didn't vote to sell the Russians 20% of US Uranium and I'll
retract my statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
How?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
Maybe the thought of Hillary as LOTFW made him laugh so hard he was
crying.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 03:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election.
So Republicans stole the election not the Russians. That's a relief.
How did Republicans steal the election? Did they make it easy for non
citizens to vote like they do in California? Did a bunch of Russian
tourists vote somewhere we don't know about?
Post by Anthony Marsh
A combination of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help
tip the election for Trump.
Comey tried hard to hideout until the election was over but that didn't
work. He had to answer questions under oath and still did a good job of
equivocating.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Did what? Who were they?
Flynn, Manafort, Page. They assured Putin that if he helped Trump win that
Trump would lift the Obama sanctions against Russia. Quid Pro Quo. Pay to
play. Kickback. Corruption. Treason.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
So YOU know the inside story on Benghazi?! That means you have
connections with the CIA. I've suspected that for a long time because you
always claim to have information the general public doesn't know.
Yes, so what?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server.
Yes it was by US State Department Regulations.
No. Powell wasn't prosecuted. Others were not prosecuted. Hillary was
not prosecuted.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Others have had the same type of private server and they weren't
arrested.
So two wrongs make a right? Very original of you to come with that
kindergarten excuse.
No, silly. Precedent.
Not many people are executed for blasphemy any more.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was a stupid mistake.
It cost her the election because the common people realized she was
Common people? You mean Trump's favorite low information voters? They
have to be told what to think.
Post by claviger
incredibly stupid, careless, and arrogant. A real bad combination. One
So, you think you are more informed about servers?
Was Powell? You know, the guy who told her to use a private server?
Post by claviger
obvious questions came up, if the Russians did hack her server could they
blackmail her if elected president?
Sure. Why don't you claim they were blackmailing her about her Lesbian
orgies? Try EVERY trick in the book. Wimp!
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play?
What about it? No personal attacks on Trump?! Questions of pay for play
Who made the personal attacks on Trump? You mean the women he raped?
I like your logic. When a murder victim complains about being murdered
you call that a personal attack.
Post by claviger
surfaced with the Clinton Foundation World Tour at taxpayer's expense when
Hillary was pretending to be Secretary of State so she could get free
airfare and rack up bonus points.
Show me the money trail, not just Fox News talking points. How about when
she used GOVERNMENT MONEY to travel all over the world when she was the
Secretary of State? Isn't that a scandal? How about Hairgate when Clinton
used GOVERNMENT MONEY to get a haircut? Isn't that grounds for
impeachment?

What about Nixon getting a free dog? Isn't that grounds for impeachment?
Do you remember Checkersgate? No, because it happened BEFORE Watergate and
only after Watergate do we call every scandal ...-gate.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There are many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
You can ask Hillary the same question. While she was dodging the press
for 9 months Trump was getting all the face time coverage, good and bad.
So, this is a contest?
Post by claviger
Old saying in politics: "Don't care what you say about me just spell my
name right." The worst problem for a politician is to be ignored.
Hillary ignored the media so in effect she ignored potential voters.
False, she was on the news every day. Some politicians use aides to
speak for them.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent?
I talked to a Russian once. Guess I violated the Logan Act. I just
Yup. Turn yourself in.
As I said before, I talked to a KGB agent.
Post by claviger
couldn't help myself. She was a beautiful woman and I gave her money too.
Had no choice, she was my waitress at a popular steakhouse here in the
USA.
But she was no longer a Russian citizen. You don't seem to understand
the difference.
Post by claviger
As for a better relationship with Russia wasn't that what the JFK speech
at American University was all about?
Why didn't you try to make a better relationship with the Russian
waitress? I always tried to make better relationships with the foreign
students my family housed. So much so that we changed the name of the
organization to Experiment in International Loving.

No one knew at the time that my father was working for the CIA. And don't
even ask about the funding for the East-West Foundation.
Post by claviger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20130304_JFK_AU_Speech_Legacy.cfm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you suggest the same thing about working with Hitler in 1937?
No I wasn't born yet but JFK's dad was Ambassador to Great Britain. He
supported appeasement with the aggressive new German Chancellor who was
taking a bellicose attitude toward the Allies. The reason Witt was at the
parade pumping his umbrella up and down.
Yes, exactly. And the British Royalty was very pro-German. Could be
because their heritage was German.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
No, she was a SoS on the make for foreign contributions to the Clinton
Foundation. As to US foreign policy what President would not want a
Sure, why just US contribtions if it was meant to be a Global Initiative.
Exactly how many billions did Putin personally contribute?
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia? It was JFK who set that peace initiative
Obama did not want better relations with Russia as long as Putin was
there.
Post by claviger
in motion. RR kept the momentum going with Gorbachev. If Hillary was
RR helped Gorbachev bring down the Soviet System. It was one of his
greatest accopmplishments.
Post by claviger
being tough on Putin why approve the uranium deal? Obviously she was
Maybe you should research what the uranium deal really was all about. I'll
give you a hint? Watch the news on TV today. Google Hanford. We have tons
of nuclear material to get rid of and Russia is more than happy to take it
off our hands.
Post by claviger
sending a message it's time to play ball with each other.
She didn't. Trump sent a message it's time for Pay to Play.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
So now you're watering down your argument because you know you lost the
argument. It wasn't Clinton making the decision, now she was just PART of
making the decision. She didn't have the power to do it all by herself,
but you tried to place all the blame on her. Now you're backing down.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
So tell me she didn't vote to sell the Russians 20% of US Uranium and I'll
retract my statement.
Vote? When? Was she the only vote? Was she the deciding vote?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
How?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
Maybe the thought of Hillary as LOTFW made him laugh so hard he was
crying.
Many people voted against Hillary because they were afraid of what
acronym to call Bill Clinton if she won. I voted for First Dude, but I
couldn't pronounce the acronym.

Many women voted against Hillary because they didn't want to see Bill's
stains all over the WH furniture.
claviger
2017-05-13 00:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election.
So Republicans stole the election not the Russians. That's a relief.
How did Republicans steal the election? Did they make it easy for non
citizens to vote like they do in California? Did a bunch of Russian
tourists vote somewhere we don't know about?
Post by Anthony Marsh
A combination of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help
tip the election for Trump.
Comey tried hard to hideout until the election was over but that didn't
work. He had to answer questions under oath and still did a good job of
equivocating.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Did what? Who were they?
Flynn, Manafort, Page. They assured Putin that if he helped Trump win that
Trump would lift the Obama sanctions against Russia. Quid Pro Quo. Pay to
play. Kickback. Corruption. Treason.
So how did Putin help Trump win? Trump wanted to lift sanctions anyway to
do more business with Russia, therefore Trump already had incentive for a
better relationship with Putin.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
So YOU know the inside story on Benghazi?! That means you have
connections with the CIA. I've suspected that for a long time because you
always claim to have information the general public doesn't know.
Yes, so what?
CIA personnel are welcome here too like any other US citizen. Are you on
the payroll as a provocateur or just messing with folks for the fun of it?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server.
Yes it was by US State Department Regulations.
No. Powell wasn't prosecuted. Others were not prosecuted. Hillary was
not prosecuted.
All of them should have been prosecuted if they broke Federal Law.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Others have had the same type of private server and they weren't
arrested.
So two wrongs make a right? Very original of you to come with that
kindergarten excuse.
No, silly. Precedent.
So negligence automatically renders any Federal Law null and void?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not many people are executed for blasphemy any more.
Was blasphemy a Federal Law?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was a stupid mistake.
It cost her the election because the common people realized she was
Common people? You mean Trump's favorite low information voters? They
have to be told what to think.
What makes you think they are low information voters? Are you
perpetuating Hillary's "Deplorables" smear job?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incredibly stupid, careless, and arrogant. A real bad combination. One>
So, you think you are more informed about servers?
Was Powell? You know, the guy who told her to use a private server?
Don't need to be an expert on servers. The news media claims privater
servers are not authorized for certain high ranking Federal officers.
Are they correct?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
obvious questions came up, if the Russians did hack her server could they
blackmail her if elected president?
Sure. Why don't you claim they were blackmailing her about her Lesbian
orgies? Try EVERY trick in the book. Wimp!
Hillary has lesbian orgies?! Is this more of your secret CIA info? Do
the Russians know and are they blackmailing her? I don't care about
lesbian orgies. All I care about is her policies.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play?
What about it? No personal attacks on Trump?! Questions of pay for play
Who made the personal attacks on Trump? You mean the women he raped?
I like your logic. When a murder victim complains about being murdered
you call that a personal attack.
Rape and sexual harassment are only relevant if you are Republican. If
you are a Democrat you get a free pass. The voters set that precedent
when they put Billy Bill back in office for a second term. Remember all
the "bimbo eruptions" Hillary had to deal with?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
surfaced with the Clinton Foundation World Tour at taxpayer's expense when
Hillary was pretending to be Secretary of State so she could get free
airfare and rack up bonus points.
Show me the money trail, not just Fox News talking points. How about when
she used GOVERNMENT MONEY to travel all over the world when she was the
Secretary of State? Isn't that a scandal? How about Hairgate when Clinton
used GOVERNMENT MONEY to get a haircut? Isn't that grounds for
impeachment?
What about Nixon getting a free dog? Isn't that grounds for impeachment?
Do you remember Checkersgate? No, because it happened BEFORE Watergate and
only after Watergate do we call every scandal ...-gate.
Where did the 300 million come from in the Clinton Foundation? There were
several foreign donors who thought Hillary was going to win.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There are many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
You can ask Hillary the same question. While she was dodging the press
for 9 months Trump was getting all the face time coverage, good and bad.
So, this is a contest?
Yes, running for President is the biggest contest in the USA. In second
place is "Dancing With The Stars". Maybe Hillary will give that a try.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Old saying in politics: "Don't care what you say about me just spell my
name right." The worst problem for a politician is to be ignored.
Hillary ignored the media so in effect she ignored potential voters.
False, she was on the news every day. Some politicians use aides to
speak for them.
The news was about her avoiding Q&A interviews for 9 months. That's a
record that will never be broken. A no interview policy then show up for
a couple of debates. Most unique campaign in US history. I think it was
hilarious or should I say hillaryous. IMO all elections should take place
in six months with no debates. In fact I like the old convention system.
Pick those candidates and let them debate one time, then let's vote.
That will never happen because elections are now an established industry
more than just a process.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent?
I talked to a Russian once. Guess I violated the Logan Act. I just
Yup. Turn yourself in.
As I said before, I talked to a KGB agent.
Post by claviger
couldn't help myself. She was a beautiful woman and I gave her money too.
Had no choice, she was my waitress at a popular steakhouse here in the
USA.
But she was no longer a Russian citizen. You don't seem to understand
the difference.
Actually she and her husband somehow got a temporary visa to the US and
decided to stay. Both were well educated and ended up working for
engineering firms. Don't know if they defected or simply never went home.
No idea if they became US citizens or not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
As for a better relationship with Russia wasn't that what the JFK speech
at American University was all about?
Why didn't you try to make a better relationship with the Russian
waitress?
She worked at the popular restaurant for almost a year before finding a
high paying job. A classic American success story.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I always tried to make better relationships with the foreign students my
family housed. So much so that we changed the name of the organization
to Experiment in International Loving.
No one knew at the time that my father was working for the CIA. And don't
even ask about the funding for the East-West Foundation.
Post by claviger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20130304_JFK_AU_Speech_Legacy.cfm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you suggest the same thing about working with Hitler in 1937?
No I wasn't born yet but JFK's dad was Ambassador to Great Britain. He
supported appeasement with the aggressive new German Chancellor who was
taking a bellicose attitude toward the Allies. The reason Witt was at the
parade pumping his umbrella up and down.
Yes, exactly. And the British Royalty was very pro-German. Could be
because their heritage was German.
The UK Liberal Party praised Hitler as an economic hero and chastised
Churchill for warning this fanatic posed a threat to European peace and
prosperity.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
No, she was a SoS on the make for foreign contributions to the Clinton
Foundation. As to US foreign policy what President would not want a
Sure, why just US contribtions if it was meant to be a Global Initiative.
Exactly how many billions did Putin personally contribute?
Good question.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia? It was JFK who set that peace initiative
Obama did not want better relations with Russia as long as Putin was
there.
My impression is Obama wanted a better relationship with Russia.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
in motion. RR kept the momentum going with Gorbachev. If Hillary was
RR helped Gorbachev bring down the Soviet System. It was one of his
greatest accopmplishments.
Thanks for reminding us.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
being tough on Putin why approve the uranium deal? Obviously she was
Maybe you should research what the uranium deal really was all about. I'll
give you a hint? Watch the news on TV today. Google Hanford. We have tons
of nuclear material to get rid of and Russia is more than happy to take it
off our hands.
Did Hillary vote to sell Russia 20% of US uranium, yes or no?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
sending a message it's time to play ball with each other.
She didn't. Trump sent a message it's time for Pay to Play.
Pay to Play what?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
So now you're watering down your argument because you know you lost the
argument. It wasn't Clinton making the decision, now she was just PART of
making the decision. She didn't have the power to do it all by herself,
but you tried to place all the blame on her. Now you're backing down.
Did Hillary vote to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia, yes or no?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
So tell me she didn't vote to sell the Russians 20% of US Uranium and I'll
retract my statement.
Vote? When? Was she the only vote? Was she the deciding vote?
Doesn't matter. She could have been a courageous minority vote of one.
The simple question is did she vote to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia?
Maybe Putin was blackmailing her to vote for the deal after they hacked
her server.
mainframetech
2017-05-09 14:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.

Chris
John McAdams
2017-05-09 14:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.
Unlikely. They had nothing to fear from Hillary, she of the "reset"
button. She of the feckless Benghazi response, and Obama's feckless
"red line" in Syria.

Trump, on the other hand, they would have to view as erratic and
unpredictable. That's something they would *not* have wanted.

They likely believed, like everybody else, that Hillary would win, and
wanted her a weakened president.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-10 02:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.
Unlikely. They had nothing to fear from Hillary, she of the "reset"
button. She of the feckless Benghazi response, and Obama's feckless
"red line" in Syria.
Naive. Hillary humiliated Putin and would have kept the Obama policies
in place, which means sanctions. No drilling for oil in the Arctic.
Post by John McAdams
Trump, on the other hand, they would have to view as erratic and
unpredictable. That's something they would *not* have wanted.
Exactly what the Russians would want to destabilize the US.
And Trump was in their pocket.
Post by John McAdams
They likely believed, like everybody else, that Hillary would win, and
wanted her a weakened president.
That is many one reason why they wanted to interfere in the US elections.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-05-10 22:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.
Unlikely. They had nothing to fear from Hillary, she of the "reset"
button. She of the feckless Benghazi response, and Obama's feckless
"red line" in Syria.
Trump, on the other hand, they would have to view as erratic and
unpredictable. That's something they would *not* have wanted.
They likely believed, like everybody else, that Hillary would win, and
wanted her a weakened president.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Opinions vary.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-10 02:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.
And it meant the US would lift the sanctions. That's what Flynn promised
them.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2017-05-07 18:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Of course this is a sensible report highlighting the safeguards built into
our voting systems which make the sort of alleged hacking of the voting
virtually impossible. The key phrase was “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. I have pointed this out to
Chris/mainframetech on several occasions and still he refuses to let go of
the possibility that the actual voting and/or vote counting were
compromised. It's not as if voter fraud is a new concept. The safeguards
have evolved over time to prevent the kind of cheating that has been done
in the past. No system is foolproof but any cheating now days is going to
done on a very small scale.

Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated
conspiracy hobbyist. Whether we are talking about the JFK assassination,
the moon landings, TWA 800, 9/11 Truthers, etc. there are always going to
be people conditioned to believe just about any conspiracy theory that
comes along and there are also charlatans like Jim Marrs who know that and
will attempt to make a buck by selling crap to people who are more than
eager to buy it.
Bud
2017-05-08 20:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Of course this is a sensible report highlighting the safeguards built into
our voting systems which make the sort of alleged hacking of the voting
virtually impossible. The key phrase was “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. I have pointed this out to
Chris/mainframetech on several occasions and still he refuses to let go of
the possibility that the actual voting and/or vote counting were
compromised. It's not as if voter fraud is a new concept. The safeguards
have evolved over time to prevent the kind of cheating that has been done
in the past. No system is foolproof but any cheating now days is going to
done on a very small scale.
Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated
conspiracy hobbyist. Whether we are talking about the JFK assassination,
the moon landings, TWA 800, 9/11 Truthers, etc. there are always going to
be people conditioned to believe just about any conspiracy theory that
comes along and there are also charlatans like Jim Marrs who know that and
will attempt to make a buck by selling crap to people who are more than
eager to buy it.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that in America everyone gets to
choose their own reality. I don`t even know why the media bothers to fact
check what Trump says, if his supporters want to believe what he says is
true who is to say they can`t? Liberals get to claim that there are Nazis
everywhere. Blacks get to blame institutional racism for their problems.
The transgender community can say they are engaged in a civil rights
struggle. If some groups write their own narratives then all groups should
be able to, and nobody should be able to write the narrative of another
group. If white males want to support Trump that support should be given
the same respect every other crackpot group gets in America.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 02:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Of course this is a sensible report highlighting the safeguards built into
our voting systems which make the sort of alleged hacking of the voting
virtually impossible. The key phrase was “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. I have pointed this out to
Chris/mainframetech on several occasions and still he refuses to let go of
the possibility that the actual voting and/or vote counting were
compromised. It's not as if voter fraud is a new concept. The safeguards
have evolved over time to prevent the kind of cheating that has been done
in the past. No system is foolproof but any cheating now days is going to
done on a very small scale.
Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated
conspiracy hobbyist. Whether we are talking about the JFK assassination,
the moon landings, TWA 800, 9/11 Truthers, etc. there are always going to
be people conditioned to believe just about any conspiracy theory that
comes along and there are also charlatans like Jim Marrs who know that and
will attempt to make a buck by selling crap to people who are more than
eager to buy it.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that in America everyone gets to
choose their own reality. I don`t even know why the media bothers to fact
check what Trump says, if his supporters want to believe what he says is
true who is to say they can`t? Liberals get to claim that there are Nazis
everywhere. Blacks get to blame institutional racism for their problems.
The transgender community can say they are engaged in a civil rights
struggle. If some groups write their own narratives then all groups should
be able to, and nobody should be able to write the narrative of another
group. If white males want to support Trump that support should be given
the same respect every other crackpot group gets in America.
This is exactly what Steve Bannon and the Alt-Right invented and keep
pushing, in order to destroy this country. That is their only goal.
Bud
2017-05-10 02:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Of course this is a sensible report highlighting the safeguards built into
our voting systems which make the sort of alleged hacking of the voting
virtually impossible. The key phrase was “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. I have pointed this out to
Chris/mainframetech on several occasions and still he refuses to let go of
the possibility that the actual voting and/or vote counting were
compromised. It's not as if voter fraud is a new concept. The safeguards
have evolved over time to prevent the kind of cheating that has been done
in the past. No system is foolproof but any cheating now days is going to
done on a very small scale.
Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated
conspiracy hobbyist. Whether we are talking about the JFK assassination,
the moon landings, TWA 800, 9/11 Truthers, etc. there are always going to
be people conditioned to believe just about any conspiracy theory that
comes along and there are also charlatans like Jim Marrs who know that and
will attempt to make a buck by selling crap to people who are more than
eager to buy it.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that in America everyone gets to
choose their own reality. I don`t even know why the media bothers to fact
check what Trump says, if his supporters want to believe what he says is
true who is to say they can`t? Liberals get to claim that there are Nazis
everywhere. Blacks get to blame institutional racism for their problems.
The transgender community can say they are engaged in a civil rights
struggle. If some groups write their own narratives then all groups should
be able to, and nobody should be able to write the narrative of another
group. If white males want to support Trump that support should be given
the same respect every other crackpot group gets in America.
This is exactly what Steve Bannon and the Alt-Right invented and keep
pushing, in order to destroy this country. That is their only goal.
The left plays the same silly game. They want their narratives accepted
without dispute. What is your "punch a Nazi" nonsense but a terrorist
attempt use violence to shut down dissent?
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 13:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
The NASS report cited the states??? ???highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process??? as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting???s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks ??? denial of service and password-guessing
??? all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump???s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states ??? but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn???t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones??? Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska???s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don???t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article ???American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Of course this is a sensible report highlighting the safeguards built into
our voting systems which make the sort of alleged hacking of the voting
virtually impossible. The key phrase was ???highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process???. I have pointed this out to
Chris/mainframetech on several occasions and still he refuses to let go of
the possibility that the actual voting and/or vote counting were
compromised. It's not as if voter fraud is a new concept. The safeguards
have evolved over time to prevent the kind of cheating that has been done
in the past. No system is foolproof but any cheating now days is going to
done on a very small scale.
Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated
conspiracy hobbyist. Whether we are talking about the JFK assassination,
the moon landings, TWA 800, 9/11 Truthers, etc. there are always going to
be people conditioned to believe just about any conspiracy theory that
comes along and there are also charlatans like Jim Marrs who know that and
will attempt to make a buck by selling crap to people who are more than
eager to buy it.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that in America everyone gets to
choose their own reality. I don`t even know why the media bothers to fact
check what Trump says, if his supporters want to believe what he says is
true who is to say they can`t? Liberals get to claim that there are Nazis
everywhere. Blacks get to blame institutional racism for their problems.
The transgender community can say they are engaged in a civil rights
struggle. If some groups write their own narratives then all groups should
be able to, and nobody should be able to write the narrative of another
group. If white males want to support Trump that support should be given
the same respect every other crackpot group gets in America.
This is exactly what Steve Bannon and the Alt-Right invented and keep
pushing, in order to destroy this country. That is their only goal.
The left plays the same silly game. They want their narratives accepted
without dispute. What is your "punch a Nazi" nonsense but a terrorist
attempt use violence to shut down dissent?
Slander. I never said punch a Nazi. Some Nazi online said punch a
protestor.
mainframetech
2017-05-09 14:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Of course this is a sensible report highlighting the safeguards built into
our voting systems which make the sort of alleged hacking of the voting
virtually impossible. The key phrase was “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. I have pointed this out to
Chris/mainframetech on several occasions and still he refuses to let go of
the possibility that the actual voting and/or vote counting were
compromised. It's not as if voter fraud is a new concept. The safeguards
have evolved over time to prevent the kind of cheating that has been done
in the past. No system is foolproof but any cheating now days is going to
done on a very small scale.
WRONG! I'M REALLY GETTING TIRED OF YOU LISTENING TO LIARS AND
REPEATING EVERYTHING THEY SAY HERE!

I have pointed out to you how election totals can be hacked, but I
never said they had been! So as usual, you're passing out
dis-information, not nice in a forum of this type. I also pointed out to
you that a successful hack was when the hack was not discovered. And
still I did NOT say there had been a definite hacking of election totals.
Now, since I gave you a complete list of the various ways that an election
and election machines can be jacked TODAY, I have heard NOTHING from you
about how I was wrong. I continue to wait as with the JFK murder, on your
new and breathtaking news about why you think (once again) that you're
right without saying why).

Further training for you. The phrase “highly-decentralized,
ow-connectivity elections process” sounds like it means something,
but when it comes to the hacking of election machines, it's (as usual)
wrong and doesn't apply to EVERY machine out there that's counting votes.
Further information for you is that 'decentralized' or 'low connectivity'
is just talk because at some point in every venue that collects votes
there is a point where the vote counts must be summarized and carried to
the state center. If that is done over the internet, which is how it
sometimes still is, then there is a chance to hack the counts, as has
previously been explained you. If those counts are taken by hand to the
state center, THEN entered into a machine, that machine can be hacked.

Those are just a few ways that the current methods of counting can be
hacked, but that was all laid out for you before when I listed the many
ways that even today the election machines could be hacked. I even linked
you to an article speaking of the current situation in many states where
they were still using old machines because they couldn't afford new ones
yet, and the old one were as vulnerable as a leaf in the wind.
Post by bigdog
Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated
conspiracy hobbyist. Whether we are talking about the JFK assassination,
the moon landings, TWA 800, 9/11 Truthers, etc. there are always going to
be people conditioned to believe just about any conspiracy theory that
comes along and there are also charlatans like Jim Marrs who know that and
will attempt to make a buck by selling crap to people who are more than
eager to buy it.
Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated LN
conspiracy hobbyist once he's been taken in by the WCR. It's almost a
religion for them. And when they are faced with facts from official
records, they get even more angry and frustrated, and begin to take it out
on anyone nearby that has been the cause of their inability to be in
charge anymore of the bullshit concession of a forum.


Why not prove your case in an argument or debate over some point of
the case, instead of spending all your time expressing your jaundiced
opinions? Don't become a laughing stock.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-10 16:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Of course this is a sensible report highlighting the safeguards built into
our voting systems which make the sort of alleged hacking of the voting
virtually impossible. The key phrase was “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. I have pointed this out to
Chris/mainframetech on several occasions and still he refuses to let go of
the possibility that the actual voting and/or vote counting were
compromised. It's not as if voter fraud is a new concept. The safeguards
have evolved over time to prevent the kind of cheating that has been done
in the past. No system is foolproof but any cheating now days is going to
done on a very small scale.
WRONG! I'M REALLY GETTING TIRED OF YOU LISTENING TO LIARS AND
REPEATING EVERYTHING THEY SAY HERE!
I have pointed out to you how election totals can be hacked,
Only very vaguely. The devil is in the details which you are unable to
provide.
Post by mainframetech
but I never said they had been!
I never said you had said that. I said you refused to let go of the
possibility.
Post by mainframetech
So as usual, you're passing out
dis-information, not nice in a forum of this type.
No disinformation. Everything I said is true. You continue to argue the
election MIGHT have been hacked even though I have pointed out to you the
safeguards in place to prevent such widespread fraud and you have been
unable to point out how those safeguards COULD have been defeated.
Post by mainframetech
I also pointed out to
you that a successful hack was when the hack was not discovered.
You just haven't been able to explain how such a successful hack could
have been perpetrated except in the most abstract terms.
Post by mainframetech
And
still I did NOT say there had been a definite hacking of election totals.
And still I have not said you did say that.
Post by mainframetech
Now, since I gave you a complete list of the various ways that an election
and election machines can be jacked TODAY, I have heard NOTHING from you
about how I was wrong.
Then you haven't been paying attention because I have explained the
safeguards in place to thwart the kind of fraud you claim was possible.
Post by mainframetech
I continue to wait as with the JFK murder, on your
new and breathtaking news about why you think (once again) that you're
right without saying why).
You're waiting for a bus you already missed.
Post by mainframetech
Further training for you. The phrase “highly-decentralized,
ow-connectivity elections process” sounds like it means something,
but when it comes to the hacking of election machines, it's (as usual)
wrong and doesn't apply to EVERY machine out there that's counting votes.
Further information for you is that 'decentralized' or 'low connectivity'
is just talk because at some point in every venue that collects votes
there is a point where the vote counts must be summarized and carried to
the state center. If that is done over the internet, which is how it
sometimes still is, then there is a chance to hack the counts, as has
previously been explained you. If those counts are taken by hand to the
state center, THEN entered into a machine, that machine can be hacked.
And once again I point out to you the safeguards which would reveal any
such manipulation of the vote total and the central repository. Each poll
workers at each precinct manually record the vote totals for every race
creating a paper trail of the vote totals for each machine. Every poll
worker signs that book attesting to the recorded totals. If the central
vote tabulator is hacked, those totals will not match to the totals from
the vote totals recorded in the books at every precinct. There is
redundancy built into the process so tampering with a result in one place
will be revealed by the totals recorded elsewhere. Why don't save this
response so you don't falsely claim "I have heard NOTHING from you about
how I was wrong.". I just told you why you are wrong. AGAIN!!!
Post by mainframetech
Those are just a few ways that the current methods of counting can be
hacked, but that was all laid out for you before when I listed the many
ways that even today the election machines could be hacked. I even linked
you to an article speaking of the current situation in many states where
they were still using old machines because they couldn't afford new ones
yet, and the old one were as vulnerable as a leaf in the wind.
You have offered theoretical ways the vote totals could be hacked and at
each turn I have explained to you the safeguards in place to thwart such
hacking. You have been unable to counter with a way those safeguards could
be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated
conspiracy hobbyist. Whether we are talking about the JFK assassination,
the moon landings, TWA 800, 9/11 Truthers, etc. there are always going to
be people conditioned to believe just about any conspiracy theory that
comes along and there are also charlatans like Jim Marrs who know that and
will attempt to make a buck by selling crap to people who are more than
eager to buy it.
Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated LN
conspiracy hobbyist once he's been taken in by the WCR. It's almost a
religion for them. And when they are faced with facts from official
records, they get even more angry and frustrated, and begin to take it out
on anyone nearby that has been the cause of their inability to be in
charge anymore of the bullshit concession of a forum.
The irony oozes from you every word.
Post by mainframetech
Why not prove your case in an argument or debate over some point of
the case, instead of spending all your time expressing your jaundiced
opinions?
Been there. Done that. It's wasted on you.
Post by mainframetech
Don't become a laughing stock.
That's your role.
Jean Davison
2017-05-11 03:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.

Remember this quote? "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 missing emails..."

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/758320094619381760?lang=en



Jean
John McAdams
2017-05-11 03:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Actually, the anti-Trump people have moved on now to claiming that
Trump and his people actually colluded with the Russians to "steal"
the election.

Of course, there is no evidence of that. But the anti-Trump people
have to hold onto something.
Post by Jean Davison
Remember this quote? "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 missing emails..."
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/758320094619381760?lang=en
That was Trump's joke about the fact that U.S. authorities could not
find Hillary's e-mails, but the Russians seemed to be able to find
whatever they wanted.

Pretty funny, actually.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-05-11 17:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Actually, the anti-Trump people have moved on now to claiming that
Trump and his people actually colluded with the Russians to "steal"
the election.
Of course, there is no evidence of that. But the anti-Trump people
have to hold onto something.
It's not hard to hold onto something when there is a piece of news
almost every day pointing to something wrong in the White House. When
Trump fire Sally Yates it wasn't a terrible thing, but pointed out that he
couldn't take anyone telling him the truth that his edict on Muslims
wasn't constitutional.

Now we have him firing the FBI director in a rather quick manner soon
after find ing that the Russian investigation was heating up and
expanding. Comey came to his boss (Trump's man) and asked for more money
and personnel. That no doubt got to the W.H. and Trump then had to stop
him ASAP before the expansion of the investigation got out of hand and the
truth that Trump is hiding comes out. As an anti-Trump person, that's
what I hold my hopes on, that the truth he's hiding comes out.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-11 22:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Actually, the anti-Trump people have moved on now to claiming that
Trump and his people actually colluded with the Russians to "steal"
the election.
Of course, there is no evidence of that. But the anti-Trump people
have to hold onto something.
It's not hard to hold onto something when there is a piece of news
almost every day pointing to something wrong in the White House.
Of course there is. The main stream media despise Trump and they are on a
vendetta to destroy his presidency. They are still incensed that Trump
denied their darling Hillary her seat on the throne.
Post by mainframetech
When
Trump fire Sally Yates it wasn't a terrible thing, but pointed out that he
couldn't take anyone telling him the truth that his edict on Muslims
wasn't constitutional.
He fired her for refusing to follow his orders. It is what any boss should
do with an insubordinate employee.
Post by mainframetech
Now we have him firing the FBI director in a rather quick manner soon
after find ing that the Russian investigation was heating up and
expanding.
So after months of hearing Hillary complain that Comey cost her the
election through unethical acts, the left is no incensed that Trump has
fired Comey. That's just too funny.
Post by mainframetech
Comey came to his boss (Trump's man) and asked for more money
and personnel. That no doubt got to the W.H. and Trump then had to stop
him ASAP before the expansion of the investigation got out of hand and the
truth that Trump is hiding comes out. As an anti-Trump person, that's
what I hold my hopes on, that the truth he's hiding comes out.
Keep hoping.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-12 19:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Actually, the anti-Trump people have moved on now to claiming that
Trump and his people actually colluded with the Russians to "steal"
the election.
Of course, there is no evidence of that. But the anti-Trump people
have to hold onto something.
It's not hard to hold onto something when there is a piece of news
almost every day pointing to something wrong in the White House.
Of course there is. The main stream media despise Trump and they are on a
vendetta to destroy his presidency. They are still incensed that Trump
denied their darling Hillary her seat on the throne.
Post by mainframetech
When
Trump fire Sally Yates it wasn't a terrible thing, but pointed out that he
couldn't take anyone telling him the truth that his edict on Muslims
wasn't constitutional.
He fired her for refusing to follow his orders. It is what any boss should
do with an insubordinate employee.
Post by mainframetech
Now we have him firing the FBI director in a rather quick manner soon
after find ing that the Russian investigation was heating up and
expanding.
So after months of hearing Hillary complain that Comey cost her the
election through unethical acts, the left is no incensed that Trump has
fired Comey. That's just too funny.
Didn't you read my message? I said GOOD NEWS: Trump fired Comey.
I ASSuME your typo meant NOW.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Comey came to his boss (Trump's man) and asked for more money
and personnel. That no doubt got to the W.H. and Trump then had to stop
him ASAP before the expansion of the investigation got out of hand and the
truth that Trump is hiding comes out. As an anti-Trump person, that's
what I hold my hopes on, that the truth he's hiding comes out.
Keep hoping.
mainframetech
2017-05-13 02:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Actually, the anti-Trump people have moved on now to claiming that
Trump and his people actually colluded with the Russians to "steal"
the election.
Of course, there is no evidence of that. But the anti-Trump people
have to hold onto something.
It's not hard to hold onto something when there is a piece of news
almost every day pointing to something wrong in the White House.
Of course there is. The main stream media despise Trump and they are on a
vendetta to destroy his presidency. They are still incensed that Trump
denied their darling Hillary her seat on the throne.
WOW! Did you ever get sucked in! First the WCR, now this! Trump
called the media many names and used them mercilessly to get his message
across, and it's the first important step in any dictator's efforts to
shut up any honest media. All media must be run by the boss man so the
people don't hear anything but the one message, like in North Korea.
They hear only praise for the 'Dear Leader'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When
Trump fire Sally Yates it wasn't a terrible thing, but pointed out that he
couldn't take anyone telling him the truth that his edict on Muslims
wasn't constitutional.
The fool didn't realize she was trying to save him the embarrassment
from losing his Muslim ban by trying to carry it out. She explained to
him that it was unconstitutional, and she was borne out by the courts.
Post by bigdog
He fired her for refusing to follow his orders. It is what any boss should
do with an insubordinate employee.
See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now we have him firing the FBI director in a rather quick manner soon
after finding that the Russian investigation was heating up and
expanding.
So after months of hearing Hillary complain that Comey cost her the
election through unethical acts, the left is no incensed that Trump has
fired Comey. That's just too funny.
BULLSHIT! Hillary only recently came out of her shell and mentioned
that Comey was one of the reasons she lost. The other was the Russians.
I think there was more to it, but that's what she said, since I saw her
saying it. What bothers Trump, (and you can tell when he does his ego
building rallies) is that Hillary got the popular vote, meaning that he
was not as popular as she. When he heard that a few times, he immediately
began saying that he intended to get the electoral college cote, not the
popular vote. Sort od a sour grapes thing.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Comey came to his boss (Trump's man) and asked for more money
and personnel. That no doubt got to the W.H. and Trump then had to stop
him ASAP before the expansion of the investigation got out of hand and the
truth that Trump is hiding comes out. As an anti-Trump person, that's
what I hold my hopes on, that the truth he's hiding comes out.
Keep hoping.
YUP! It's starting to unravel already! He opened his mouth and was
caught lying about the Comey firing.

Chris
John McAdams
2017-05-13 02:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
When
Trump fire Sally Yates it wasn't a terrible thing, but pointed out that he
couldn't take anyone telling him the truth that his edict on Muslims
wasn't constitutional.
The fool didn't realize she was trying to save him the embarrassment
from losing his Muslim ban by trying to carry it out. She explained to
him that it was unconstitutional, and she was borne out by the courts.
Borne out by one liberal federal judge.

You need to know how this works. It's called "venue shopping." You
find a federal judge with the correct ideology, and that judge gives
you want you want.

By the time you appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, years have
passed, and it's all moot.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-14 02:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Actually, the anti-Trump people have moved on now to claiming that
Trump and his people actually colluded with the Russians to "steal"
the election.
Of course, there is no evidence of that. But the anti-Trump people
have to hold onto something.
It's not hard to hold onto something when there is a piece of news
almost every day pointing to something wrong in the White House.
Of course there is. The main stream media despise Trump and they are on a
vendetta to destroy his presidency. They are still incensed that Trump
denied their darling Hillary her seat on the throne.
WOW! Did you ever get sucked in! First the WCR, now this! Trump
It's always the same mentality. Always cover up. Never tell the truth.
Always Deny. Never admit any simple fact.
Post by mainframetech
called the media many names and used them mercilessly to get his message
across, and it's the first important step in any dictator's efforts to
shut up any honest media. All media must be run by the boss man so the
people don't hear anything but the one message, like in North Korea.
They hear only praise for the 'Dear Leader'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When
Trump fire Sally Yates it wasn't a terrible thing, but pointed out that he
couldn't take anyone telling him the truth that his edict on Muslims
wasn't constitutional.
The fool didn't realize she was trying to save him the embarrassment
from losing his Muslim ban by trying to carry it out. She explained to
him that it was unconstitutional, and she was borne out by the courts.
Post by bigdog
He fired her for refusing to follow his orders. It is what any boss should
do with an insubordinate employee.
See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now we have him firing the FBI director in a rather quick manner soon
after finding that the Russian investigation was heating up and
expanding.
So after months of hearing Hillary complain that Comey cost her the
election through unethical acts, the left is no incensed that Trump has
fired Comey. That's just too funny.
BULLSHIT! Hillary only recently came out of her shell and mentioned
that Comey was one of the reasons she lost. The other was the Russians.
I think there was more to it, but that's what she said, since I saw her
saying it. What bothers Trump, (and you can tell when he does his ego
building rallies) is that Hillary got the popular vote, meaning that he
was not as popular as she. When he heard that a few times, he immediately
began saying that he intended to get the electoral college cote, not the
popular vote. Sort od a sour grapes thing.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Comey came to his boss (Trump's man) and asked for more money
and personnel. That no doubt got to the W.H. and Trump then had to stop
him ASAP before the expansion of the investigation got out of hand and the
truth that Trump is hiding comes out. As an anti-Trump person, that's
what I hold my hopes on, that the truth he's hiding comes out.
Keep hoping.
YUP! It's starting to unravel already! He opened his mouth and was
caught lying about the Comey firing.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 22:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Actually, the anti-Trump people have moved on now to claiming that
Trump and his people actually colluded with the Russians to "steal"
the election.
Of course, there is no evidence of that. But the anti-Trump people
have to hold onto something.
Post by Jean Davison
Remember this quote? "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 missing emails..."
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/758320094619381760?lang=en
That was Trump's joke about the fact that U.S. authorities could not
find Hillary's e-mails, but the Russians seemed to be able to find
whatever they wanted.
Pretty funny, actually.
Not just a joke. An appeal.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2017-05-12 13:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Remember this quote? "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 missing emails..."
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/758320094619381760?lang=en
Jean
Did the Russians find those 30,000 emails and if they did what information
affected this election? Were the Chinese hacking Trump and Hillary too?
Most of the people I talked with were upset about the Benghazi disaster
and the lies she told the families and the ridiculous cover story Susan
Rice came up with that turned out to be false. They also thought
Hillary's response to Congressional questions about the security risk of
the private server was arrogant and evasive. Hillary's excuse there were
several thousand emails about the wedding was ridiculous. If true then
just turn it over to the FBI and let them be bored to death. The
Deplorables comment backfired big time. Doing a barking dog imitation at
a rally convinced a lot of people this person is mentally unfit to be
President. In none of this do I see a connection to the Russians.
Jean Davison
2017-05-13 02:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Remember this quote? "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 missing emails..."
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/758320094619381760?lang=en
Jean
Did the Russians find those 30,000 emails and if they did what information
affected this election? Were the Chinese hacking Trump and Hillary too?
Most of the people I talked with were upset about the Benghazi disaster
and the lies she told the families and the ridiculous cover story Susan
Rice came up with that turned out to be false. They also thought
Hillary's response to Congressional questions about the security risk of
the private server was arrogant and evasive. Hillary's excuse there were
several thousand emails about the wedding was ridiculous. If true then
just turn it over to the FBI and let them be bored to death. The
Deplorables comment backfired big time. Doing a barking dog imitation at
a rally convinced a lot of people this person is mentally unfit to be
President. In none of this do I see a connection to the Russians.
You misunderstood me. I'm not defending Hillary Clinton. (I'm not
a fan.) I simply pointed out that the major controversy going on about
Russian hacking isn't about voting machines, it's about the Russians
hacking emails and using other means to influence voters.

Google "Russian hacked election" and what pops up? Not "voting
machines" but articles like this:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-intelligence-officials-accept-conclusion-russia-hacked-election-2017-05-11

Jean
John McAdams
2017-05-13 02:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jean Davison
Post by claviger
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Remember this quote? "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 missing emails..."
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/758320094619381760?lang=en
Jean
Did the Russians find those 30,000 emails and if they did what information
affected this election? Were the Chinese hacking Trump and Hillary too?
Most of the people I talked with were upset about the Benghazi disaster
and the lies she told the families and the ridiculous cover story Susan
Rice came up with that turned out to be false. They also thought
Hillary's response to Congressional questions about the security risk of
the private server was arrogant and evasive. Hillary's excuse there were
several thousand emails about the wedding was ridiculous. If true then
just turn it over to the FBI and let them be bored to death. The
Deplorables comment backfired big time. Doing a barking dog imitation at
a rally convinced a lot of people this person is mentally unfit to be
President. In none of this do I see a connection to the Russians.
You misunderstood me. I'm not defending Hillary Clinton. (I'm not
a fan.) I simply pointed out that the major controversy going on about
Russian hacking isn't about voting machines, it's about the Russians
hacking emails and using other means to influence voters.
Google "Russian hacked election" and what pops up? Not "voting
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-intelligence-officials-accept-conclusion-russia-hacked-election-2017-05-11
Well, there are several permutations of the "Russians" theory. Voting
machines was one.

The best supported was the one you are referring to, that the Russians
got DNC, etc. e-mails and released them.

The next is that Trump colluded with the Russians somehow. That's
pretty much tin foil hat stuff.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-14 02:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Jean Davison
Post by claviger
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Remember this quote? "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 missing emails..."
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/758320094619381760?lang=en
Jean
Did the Russians find those 30,000 emails and if they did what information
affected this election? Were the Chinese hacking Trump and Hillary too?
Most of the people I talked with were upset about the Benghazi disaster
and the lies she told the families and the ridiculous cover story Susan
Rice came up with that turned out to be false. They also thought
Hillary's response to Congressional questions about the security risk of
the private server was arrogant and evasive. Hillary's excuse there were
several thousand emails about the wedding was ridiculous. If true then
just turn it over to the FBI and let them be bored to death. The
Deplorables comment backfired big time. Doing a barking dog imitation at
a rally convinced a lot of people this person is mentally unfit to be
President. In none of this do I see a connection to the Russians.
You misunderstood me. I'm not defending Hillary Clinton. (I'm not
a fan.) I simply pointed out that the major controversy going on about
Russian hacking isn't about voting machines, it's about the Russians
hacking emails and using other means to influence voters.
Google "Russian hacked election" and what pops up? Not "voting
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-intelligence-officials-accept-conclusion-russia-hacked-election-2017-05-11
Well, there are several permutations of the "Russians" theory. Voting
machines was one.
The best supported was the one you are referring to, that the Russians
got DNC, etc. e-mails and released them.
The next is that Trump colluded with the Russians somehow. That's
pretty much tin foil hat stuff.
Typical cover-up tactics left over from Watergate. Deny that any crime
was ever committed and attack the critics as kooks.
Did it work then? So you think it will work now?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-13 02:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Remember this quote? "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 missing emails..."
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/758320094619381760?lang=en
Jean
Did the Russians find those 30,000 emails and if they did what information
Not all the fictitious number. Maybe 3,500 or so.
Post by claviger
affected this election? Were the Chinese hacking Trump and Hillary too?
No, the actual e-mails had absolutely no effect. The Lying about
Hillary's mishandling of the e-mails is what had a small effect. All you
need is to flip 100,000 votes in the right place.
Post by claviger
Most of the people I talked with were upset about the Benghazi disaster
and the lies she told the families and the ridiculous cover story Susan
Again, all lies. You can't prove what you think went wrong in Benghazi.
Maybe we should have another committee every year.
Post by claviger
Rice came up with that turned out to be false. They also thought
Hillary's response to Congressional questions about the security risk of
the private server was arrogant and evasive. Hillary's excuse there were
AH, yeah. DUH!
So is arrogant and evasive an impeachable offense?
Is that listed on the bill of particulars for Trump?
How about outride lying by Trump? That's ok with you.
Post by claviger
several thousand emails about the wedding was ridiculous. If true then
Can you show me these e-mails or are you just making this up.
I would say more than 10 is abusive, but hey I'm not a mother anxious to
have grandchildren. Hormones, you know.
Post by claviger
just turn it over to the FBI and let them be bored to death. The
What about Anthony Weiner? There could be something salacious in those.
You don't know until you listen.
Post by claviger
Deplorables comment backfired big time. Doing a barking dog imitation at
a rally convinced a lot of people this person is mentally unfit to be
President. In none of this do I see a connection to the Russians.
Are you talking about Trump now? Thank God we have the 25th Amendment so
take care of that. Commit him.
bigdog
2017-05-13 02:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Jean Davison
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
Excuse me, but didn't the author of this article totally miss the
point? The real controversy isn't about Russian hacking of voting machines
or vote counting, it's about the hacking of Democrats' e-mails (Hillary
and others) and releasing them to try to influence the election. process.
Remember this quote? "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 missing emails..."
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/758320094619381760?lang=en
Jean
Did the Russians find those 30,000 emails and if they did what information
affected this election? Were the Chinese hacking Trump and Hillary too?
Most of the people I talked with were upset about the Benghazi disaster
and the lies she told the families and the ridiculous cover story Susan
Rice came up with that turned out to be false. They also thought
Hillary's response to Congressional questions about the security risk of
the private server was arrogant and evasive. Hillary's excuse there were
several thousand emails about the wedding was ridiculous. If true then
just turn it over to the FBI and let them be bored to death. The
Deplorables comment backfired big time. Doing a barking dog imitation at
a rally convinced a lot of people this person is mentally unfit to be
President. In none of this do I see a connection to the Russians.
Donald Trump didn't win the election as much as Hillary lost it. Her
record finally caught up with her. If the Democrats didn't want Trump,
they should never have nominated her. They have only themselves to blame.
Loading...