The Election Recount

[Benjamin Franklin]

Deranged, btw, eff off for any confusion between my initials and the poster formerly known as BF!

[Deranged Rhino]

Deranged, btw, eff off for any confusion between my initials and the poster formerly known as BF!

 

that is fair and unintentional. Just posting on the move.

[Simon]

 

 

That's a rapidly dwindling number sadly. As evidenced by BF's refusal to even look outside his party's narrative.

 

I think you are wildly, if unintentionally, misreading Mr Franklin

[B-Man]

Of Course Russia Meddles in Our Elections — But the ‘Hacking’ Claim Is a Farce

by Andrew C McCarthy

FTA:

Suffice it to say that if the American political class is suddenly worried about Russian aggression, deceit, cyber-espionage, and collaboration with Iran (in order to — get this! — fight terrorism), I welcome it to the club. And if the gray beards are fretting over Donald Trump’s potential coziness with our enemies, that’s good to hear . . . although it would have been nice to have a fraction of that fretting when it came to the Obama-Clinton operational coziness with our enemies.

All that said, the Democrats’ Chicken Little routine can’t be serious, nor can the chattering class that pretends to take it seriously.

To begin with, it would be shocking if the Russians had not attempted to meddle in our election. Historically, they’ve done it countless times (I assume, every time). That’s what hostiles do, they make mischief when and where they can

 

 

According to the Democrat-media complex, the IC believes Russia not only meddled in our election but intentionally swung it to Trump.

Indeed, to hear them tell it, our spies haven’t been this sure of something since that “slam-dunk” about Saddam hoarding WMDs.

In point of fact, though, they don’t even have proof that pins hacking on Putin’s regime. The main heavy breathing comes from the Washington Post. If you invest the time it takes to read through the first 26 paragraphs of its explosive report, you are finally told that the Post’s sources — anonymous “intelligence officials” — admit that the “actors” who came into possession of hacked files are “‘one step’ removed from the Russian government.” They may have “affiliations” to Russian intelligence services, but what exactly that means the sources can’t say. No wonder that the FBI, which is expected to be able to prove the allegations it makes, disagrees with the Post’s unidentified leakers. No wonder that other intelligence sources tell the Wall Street Journal’s editors that the leakers’ evidence is “thin.”

Even if we assume (as I do) that Putin’s regime was trying to intervene in the election, the claim that its clear intention was to help Trump is a stretch.

It is worth remembering that in March 2014, when 50,000 Russian troops were marshaled on the Ukrainian border (shortly after Putin had annexed Crimea, and six years after he took parts of Georgia), Obama administration officials told the Wall Street Journal, “What matters is [Putin’s] intent, and we don’t have a sense of that.” Now, however, despite a comparative dearth of evidence, the CIA suddenly has ESP. Based on what? Evidently, the Post’s anonymous leakers are inferring a Russian rooting interest from the appearance — they can’t say it’s a fact — that greater effort was made to hack the Democrats than the Republicans.

This claim belongs in the Chutzpah Hall of Fame.

Remember how bonkers the Democrat-media complex went toward the end of the campaign when Trump said the election was “rigged”? The media immediately demanded hard proof that the voting process was corrupted — that there had been tampering of the polling machines or a flood of ineligible voters casting ballots. Unable to produce such probative evidence, Trump moved the goal post: What he’d meant by “rigged,” his camp now said, was not really vote fraud but blatantly biased news coverage — Trump’s indiscretions were magnified while Hillary’s were barely covered.

This prompted great Democrat-media ridicule: Trump had to climb down, they scoffed, because he’d made an absurd “rigging the election” allegation that he couldn’t back up. It was said that Trump was reduced to squawking about one-sided coverage because he couldn’t show that what the press was reporting about him was untrue.

Well what have we here?

{snip}

The Democrats and their media note takers started out telling us that the Russians had “hacked” the election. But when hard proof is demanded, they must admit that there is not a scintilla of suggestion that Putin’s intelligence operatives tampered with votes — in fact, since most of the polling is not online, there’s not even evidence that an election could be hacked. So now, Democrats have moved the goal post: What they meant by “hacked,” we’re told, is not really vote fraud but blatantly biased leaking — the Democrats’ embarrassing communications were exposed while the GOP’s remained concealed.

So . . . where is the ridicule?

You’re not hearing it because the media is hoping you won’t notice the Democrats’ climb down. They made an absurd “hacking the election” allegation that they can’t back up. At most, what happened here is: The Russians did to Democrats exactly what the media does to Republicans — they subjected one side to intense scrutiny while giving the other side a pass.

Let’s not pretend the “Russia hacked the election” farce is anything other than what it is: a scheme by the Democrat-media complex to rationalize a do-over — to persuade the Electoral College that it is not bound by the election results.

The spectacle we’re watching has nothing to do with Russia.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443034/russia-election-hacking-charge-vladimir-putin-influence-american-elections

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I think you are wildly, if unintentionally, misreading Mr Franklin

 

If I am it is unintentional. But he's had plenty of time to make his case and he keeps circling back to his original, demonstrably false position.

 

Our main source of disagreement is his contention that the entire intelligence community has already concluded its investigation and reached an unimpeachable conclusion that Russia tilted the election in Trump's favor through hacking of the DNC and choosing sides. This is false yet he keeps going back to it as if it were fact.

 

My contention, which is backed by mountains of evidence, is that since at least July the US Intelligence community has been warring with itself. There are several factions, one of whom has been trying to push neo-McCarthyism for well over 3 years now (starting in Ukraine, moving to Syria and now to the election) thus we should be immediately suspect of any such narrative at the moment.

 

The FBI, CIA, DHS, NSA are warring with one another. What we're seeing played out in the MSM is an information war between agencies in our own intelligence services. This isn't me trying to have fun like I do with my theories, this is real and absolutely verifiable.

 

AND THIS REVELATION SHOULD BE FAR MORE ALARMING AND WORRYING THAN ANYTHING THE RUSSIANS ARE ACCUSED OF DOING TO OUR ELECTIONS.

 

But you can't even have that conversation, much less figure out solutions to it, unless you're willing to look at the evidence dispassionately. Franklin, so far, has not shown that ability.

 

I am not arguing, nor have I ever been arguing, that we shouldn't investigate the Russian interference in the election. I'm also not arguing that the Russians are snowy white innocents. What I am arguing is that to make the sort of claims the left and neocons are making should require evidence, not hearsay. So far, we've gotten nothing but the later.

 

We were mislead into Iraq by a neocon agenda and a MSM narrative that relied solely on suppositions made by the intelligence agencies who were under intense political pressure. That was just a decade ago. Now we're being mislead by a neocon, neoliberal and MSM narrative that's relying solely on unsubstantiated hearsay from a particular segment of the intelligence community to believe that Russia has executed a soft coup in our country.

 

Are we really supposed to just take their word for it before lighting our pitchforks and demanding justice? It seems silly to do so especially when that very intelligence community is obviously in the middle of a war with themselves.

 

Shouldn't even more skepticism be required when the actual ramifications of accusing the world's largest nuclear power of these sorts of shenanigans can lead to a nuclear exchange?

 

What I'm asking Franklin to do is look beyond the one piece of evidence he's clinging to (the USIC release which doesn't even make the case he think it makes) and see that there is something else going on behind the scenes.

[Deranged Rhino]

... And, I find it sad and ironic that the left has once again been led astray by the neocon agenda.

 

The left, who railed against the Patriot Act, cursed the intelligence community for lying its way into Iraq and then torturing its way across the ME has now shifted to the other extreme. Now, anyone who dares question the hearsay coming from anonymous CIA sources leaking stories to the media is a Russian stooge and not a real patriot.

 

It's as if the left has completely forgotten how close they came to being decimated by red-baiting and McCarthyism a few decades ago. Instead of learning lessons from history, the left who should know better, are repeating history. It's a self destructive pattern that prioritizes political party over country.

 

It's sad because I've never considered myself a conservative. I like to say I'm politically agnostic, and am, but up until 2008 if I were forced to pick a side I'd lean towards the centrists on the left. But that center left no longer exists. Both the right and left have been radicalized and fascism is swelling in both the fringe right and fringe left.

 

It's scary times.

 

That the left and MSM has now fully bought into blatant neocon propaganda that Russia is the biggest threat in the world in need of a good ol' fashion regime change shouldn't be surprising. But it should be alarming to anyone who actually values what liberalism is supposed to stand for.

[Chef Jim]

Deranged, btw, eff off for any confusion between my initials and the poster formerly known as BF!

 

No kidding. I read his post and thought "holy crap!! Is that whackadoodle back?"

[Nanker]

... And, I find it sad and ironic that the left has once again been led astray by the neocon agenda.

 

The left, who railed against the Patriot Act, cursed the intelligence community for lying its way into Iraq and then torturing its way across the ME has now shifted to the other extreme. Now, anyone who dares question the hearsay coming from anonymous CIA sources leaking stories to the media is a Russian stooge and not a real patriot.

 

It's as if the left has completely forgotten how close they came to being decimated by red-baiting and McCarthyism a few decades ago. Instead of learning lessons from history, the left who should know better, are repeating history. It's a self destructive pattern that prioritizes political party over country.

 

It's sad because I've never considered myself a conservative. I like to say I'm politically agnostic, and am, but up until 2008 if I were forced to pick a side I'd lean towards the centrists on the left. But that center left no longer exists. Both the right and left have been radicalized and fascism is swelling in both the fringe right and fringe left.

 

It's scary times.

 

That the left and MSM has now fully bought into blatant neocon propaganda that Russia is the biggest threat in the world in need of a good ol' fashion regime change shouldn't be surprising. But it should be alarming to anyone who actually values what liberalism is supposed to stand for.

Shouldn't come as a real surprise. After "being lied to" by GW and his administration to get us into war with Iraq, one would think the MSM would have done their damnedest to put a super-duper microscopic eye on any and all stories coming out of Washington. But what happened? They fell in love with B. O. and promptly dropped any semblance of objective journalism. They're like a group of grammar school children on a field trip at the zoo. They're lost in having a wonderful time being them. Oh look, there's a giraffe, a REAL giraffe! Isn't it cool? Let's get some more cotton candy.

[Deranged Rhino]

A good article from the Intercept:

 

HERE’S THE PUBLIC EVIDENCE RUSSIA HACKED THE DNC – IT’S NOT ENOUGH

 

 

We should also bear in mind that private security firm CrowdStrike’s frequently cited findings of Russian responsibility were essentially paid for by the DNC, who contracted their services in June. It’s highly unusual for evidence of a crime to be assembled on the victim’s dime. If we’re going to blame the Russian government for disrupting our presidential election — easily construed as an act of war — we need to be damn sure of every single shred of evidence. Guesswork and assumption could be disastrous.

 

(snip)

 

But look more closely at the above and you can’t help but notice all of the qualifying words: Possibly, appears, connects, indicates. It’s impossible (or at least dishonest) to present the evidence for Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats without using language like this. The question, then, is this: Do we want to make major foreign policy decisions with a belligerent nuclear power based on suggestions alone, no matter how strong?

 

(snip)

 

Viewed as a whole, the above evidence looks strong, and maybe even damning. But view each piece on its own, and it’s hard to feel impressed.

For one, a lot of the so-called evidence above is no such thing. CrowdStrike, whose claims of Russian responsibility are perhaps most influential throughout the media, says APT 28/Fancy Bear “is known for its technique of registering domains that closely resemble domains of legitimate organizations they plan to target.” But this isn’t a Russian technique any more than using a computer is a Russian technique — misspelled domains are a cornerstone of phishing attacks all over the world. Is Yandex — the Russian equivalent of Google — some sort of giveaway? Anyone who claimed a hacker must be a CIA agent because they used a Gmail account would be laughed off the internet. We must also acknowledge that just because Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be Romanian, we can’t conclude he works for the Russian government — it just makes him a liar.

(snip)

Finally, one can’t be reminded enough that all of this evidence comes from private companies with a direct financial interest in making the internet seem as scary as possible, just as Lysol depends on making you believe your kitchen is crawling with E. Coli.

(snip)

But what we’re presented with isn’t just the idea that these hacks happened, and that someone is responsible, and, well, I guess it’s just a shame. Our lawmakers and intelligence agencies are asking us to react to an attack that is almost military in nature — this is, we’re being told, “warfare.” When a foreign government conducts (or supports) an act of warfare against another country, it’s entirely possible that there will be an equal response. What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

(snip)

Given that the U.S. routinely attempts to intercept the communications of heads of state around the world, it’s not impossible that the CIA or the NSA has exactly this kind of proof. Granted, these intelligence agencies will be loath to reveal any evidence that could compromise the method they used to gather it. But in times of extraordinary risk, with two enormous military powers placed in direct conflict over national sovereignty, we need an extraordinary disclosure. The stakes are simply too high to take anyone’s word for it.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Shouldn't come as a real surprise. After "being lied to" by GW and his administration to get us into war with Iraq, one would think the MSM would have done their damnedest to put a super-duper microscopic eye on any and all stories coming out of Washington. But what happened? They fell in love with B. O. and promptly dropped any semblance of objective journalism. They're like a group of grammar school children on a field trip at the zoo. They're lost in having a wonderful time being them. Oh look, there's a giraffe, a REAL giraffe! Isn't it cool? Let's get some more cotton candy.

 

You're not wrong, I shouldn't be surprised. Disappointed might be a better term.

 

Maybe it's the fact I was outside of the LA bubble from right before the election and through the first month's aftermath that's caused me to feel like it's been a sudden shift. I was traveling and, by pure happenstance, interviewing a bunch of folks in the intelligence community (whom, largely, don't lean left) and private contractors (who are more of a mixed bag depending on the shop). Interacting with these folks as they too were learning the results of the election and the immediate fallout gave me a pretty unique glimpse into how the foot soldiers feel. Concerned is the word I'd use most, but concern with an abundance of caution.

 

I return to LA and some of the smartest, most patriotic writers I know are suddenly shoveling neo-McCarythism and pushing for blacklists as fast as their fingers can fly across the keyboard. And while I know a lot of Hollywood types live in a liberal echo chamber, I'm referencing writers whom aren't really in that camp and, prior to recently, would have stood up to assaults on their freedom of speech til the death.

 

Now, they've been swept up in this red-baiting hysteria. It's like I returned to Bizzaro world.

 

I got nothing against Franklin (again, sorry for the abbreviations), he seems to have issues with me but who can blame him. I just find it soul crushing to hear these sorts of positions being advocated by liberals who really should know better.

 

But let's bring it back to the unanswered question I posed Baskin earlier, maybe Franklin will give it a go.

 

Let's assume that there is proof the Russian government (not second party actors who are easy to disavow) is behind the DNC hacks and used that information to push a high intensity propaganda war designed to help Trump. Let's also assume that proof is incontrovertible and made public.

What's the next step? War? Censorship? Some sort of new government agency designed to filter propaganda from "fact"?

 

...Because that's how this issue is already being framed and we have yet to see a single shred of evidence. And those aren't solutions as much as they are fascist salves designed to fix the illusion of the problem rather than the problem itself.

 

The problem isn't the Russians in a vacuum. The problem lies in our dumbed down population who doesn't have the stamina or patience to do their due diligence. It also lies in the very overt information war going on between members of our own intelligence services. Censoring Russian propaganda or even launching a regime change war against Russia, does nothing to address the other two issues. Which is why framing the conversation as being solely about Russia is dangerous.

[KD in CA]

The real evidence is that none of it "interfered" in any way with the US election. It embarrassed one of the candidates by revealing things that candidate and her party were ACTUALLY saying and doing! Horrors!

 

Show me were the Russians hacked into the vote counting machines in PA and invented or switched a few hundred thousand votes and then we'd be talking about something that justifies the ridiculous level of hysteria.

 

 

 

And as always, let's pretend the hack happened to Trump/GOP. Reaction from the left:

"Republicans are so incompetent they can't keep the Russians out of their emails!"

"See!!! We told you Trump was evil! Look at what these emails say!! RAAAYSSSSIS"

"OMG! Trump rigged the entire GOP primary!! Lock him up!!"

[B-Man]

The real evidence is that none of it "interfered" in any way with the US election.

 

It embarrassed one of the candidates by revealing things that candidate and her party were ACTUALLY saying and doing! Horrors!

 

Show me were the Russians hacked into the vote counting machines in PA and invented or switched a few hundred thousand votes and then we'd be talking about something that justifies the ridiculous level of hysteria.

 

Unh-unh..........we can't have any of that common sense around here KD

[KD in CA]

Uh oh....looks like Jill may have been correct about voter fraud in Michigan!

 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/14/michigan-recount-reveals-error-but-not-the-one-jill-stein-wanted/

WASHINGTON — Green Party nominee Jill Stein’s presidential vote recount in Michigan may have turned up massive voter irregularities — in the Democratic stronghold of Detroit.

.

.

.

The Detroit News found voting scanning machines at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts — 37 percent — tabulated more ballots than the number of actual voters counted in the poll books.

 

[grinreaper]

Hmmm....strong business ties to Russia, first campaign manager for DT worked for Putin in rigging the elections in Ukraine, picks SOS who does deals with Russia, Russia hates HRC, DT actually suggested Russia hack HRC...

I think there is a decent possibility that in the next 2 years a pre-election link is established between Putin and DT and the whole thing comes crashing down

That's totally false and you know it. Here is what he sarcastically said:

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Donald+Trump+sarcastically+states+Russia+should+release+30%2c000+clinton+emails&view=detail&mid=6F8DE14B6E58471C54C06F8DE14B6E58471C54C0&FORM=VIRE

[B-Man]

"The longer Democrats are in denial, the longer their road to political recovery is going to be."

"They don’t have to like what happened, but for their own good, Democrats need to stop seriously entertaining arguments that Trump’s victory was invalid."

 

 

The evidence that Russians had any real impact on the actual election results is embarrassingly scant and wildly disproportionate to the amount of supposedly legitimate media outlets and public figures taking the idea of Russian hacking seriously. If the roles were reversed, I have no illusions that the media and their Democratic allies would be pretty dismissive of this given the lack of hard evidence.

As it happens, on October 18 no less than Barack Obama mused, “There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they are so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this time.”

Then again, we’re talking about a party that has an 80-year history of claiming Republicans were exaggerating the threat of Russia. In fact, “60 Minutes” ran a report about the effort to get Obama to pardon the Rosenbergs on October 16, three weeks before the election and 63 years after they were executed. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have all manner of evidence conclusively proving the Rosenbergs were spies. It’s not even a remotely controversial matter, unless, apparently, you’re a member of the media.

It seems as if the media only cares about Russian threats insofar as they harm Democrats’ electoral chances. To hear Democrats screaming about the threat of Russia now, after ignoring the problem for decades, isn’t something that ordinary Americans are going to pay much attention to—at least not without more evidence and some real contrition regarding their about-face on the Russian threat.

[KD in CA]

Russians (allegedly) published a bunch of emails.

 

Millions of Americans are advocating to invalidate an election because they didn't like the outcome.

 

 

I'm sorry, who exactly is a threat to our democracy?

[Benjamin Franklin]

Russians (allegedly) published a bunch of emails.

 

Millions of Americans are advocating to invalidate an election because they didn't like the outcome.

 

 

I'm sorry, who exactly is a threat to our democracy?

Most of us, including many Republicans, are not advocating what you posted.

 

But if you want to spend time talking to Tiberius, please do. He's apparently a favorite around here.

[Keukasmallies]

However, any semblance of Russia's "hacking" impact on our election is purely coincidental to the current POTUS' "hacking" impact on Israel's election not so long ago. Remember: If I do it, it's OK; if you do it, it's just plain wrong!

[GG]

 

I know you've been drooling to pick a fight with Russia for months, you want to make their lives better through violence and bloodshed. So much so you were actually the first poster here to start throwing out the "Putin stooge" attacks when I questioned your backwards and dangerous ideology. With that in mind I know you're incapable of being objective or honest in this topic but I'll try anyway:

 

 

Wrongo. I've been drooling about exposing Russia for what it is, for decades, not months. And yes, every time I encounter a Russia apologist, and let's clarify it, an apologist for a ruler who pines for the good old days of the Soviet Union and all the wonderful things that happy union brought to the world, I speak up. It's not like there isn't a 100-year history of Soviet orchestration and its effect on everyone who's been fortunate and blessed enough to be touched by it. If we only listen to the wise and unbiased sages at the Intercept or Consortium News who insist that US is the problem, and Putin is simply misunderstood.

 

But I digress. The real laugher about these exchanges is how your logic must now contort to the outcome of the election. While everyone is validly asking what's Russia's motivation for blatantly interfering with US elections, few people are asking what's CIA's motivation for publicly blaming Russia if they had nothing to do with it? After all, isn't it a lot easier to spin the story and catch the perpetrator if it's an inside leaker? Why in the world would you start an international incident and piss off your incoming boss, if there's absolutely no truth to the possibility that the Russians did the hacking. I imagine there must be another Youtube movie producer who can be the next fall guy.

 

Yet, like all grand conspiracy theories, it can't be the obvious answer. It all must involve a grand orchestration of the global world order.

[TakeYouToTasker]

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

 

 

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

 

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'