Howard Dean: Trump May Have Won With Falsified Votes
Dean came to that bracing conclusion after the recent Time piece that showed that hackers might also have altered voter data. There has long been a debate about whether actual votes were changed. The DHS, DNI, and FBI have said no. But there was no audit so where does this confidence come from?
“To be sure, having an audit is not easy as it would have to be done at the state and county level. There is the claim that our decentralized system makes it harder to rig the vote. But to change the vote you’d just need to focus on a few counties. Meanwhile, the decentralized system makes it harder to take any defensive measures-even simply having an audit takes the buy in of thousands of different officials in disparate counties across the country.”
“Back in November, I conducted an in-depth look at the vote totals in the swing states that Donald Trump shockingly won, and I came away with the distinct impression that they didn’t look like naturally occurring numbers. The trouble: I could only demonstrate that the voting results looked falsified, not that they had been falsified.”
There was a data analysis by computer scientists that noticed a suprising variance between Hillary’s numbers in districts with and without electronic voting machines-she did notable worse in the former.
It was a variance that was larger than you’d expect.
At the time this was dismissed by many MSM pundits because ‘there’s no proof this happened.’ Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A good criminal tries to avoid leaving clues much less a smoking gun.
Back to Bill Palmer:
The trouble: I could only demonstrate that the voting results looked falsified, not that they had been falsified. But based on new evidence, a major Democratic Party figure believes those vote totals may have indeed been falsified by Russian hackers.”
“It started yesterday when Time Magazine published new evidence that Russian hackers altered voter data, in an in-depth must-read article (link). The key quote from the article: “Congressional investigators are probing whether any of this stolen private information made its way to the Trump campaign.” This led former Vermont Governor and former DNC Chair Howard Dean to chime in.”
Governor Dean’s assessment: “This is much more serious than previous information. This opens the door to the idea that Trump may have won with falsified votes” (link). This distinction is crucial. Up to now, the Trump-Russia investigation has centered around the role that Russian hackers played in accessing voter data, and allegedly informing the Trump campaign as to which voters and states it should target with its campaign efforts – thus using illegal tactics to convince people to vote in a certain manner. But now we’re talking about Russian hackers having actually changed people’s votes without their knowledge.”
“As I pointed out last year, from a strictly mathematical standpoint, the results in most swing states ranged from overwhelmingly unlikely to impossible. The odds were infinitesimal of Trump conveniently winning every swing state he needed, even while badly losing the overall popular vote nationwide (akin to a football team scoring no touchdowns but winning by scoring ten safeties). It was even more suspicious that he won every one of those swing states by the same one percent of the vote, just enough to avoid an automatic recount. If this new evidence ends up proving Russian hackers did change people’s votes, then Donald Trump was not elected President of the United States.”
Speaking of the computer scientists who had further noted the mathematic discrepancies in the three swing states that decided the election, a lot of very foolish arguments were made in the subsequent attempts to debunk them.
One absurd claim is that it’s basically impossible to hack an election. Uh-not exactly. Here was a Politico piece back on August 5, 2016:
“How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes.”
Child’s play. Hacking an election only takes 7 minutes.
Totally debunks the notion that hacking the election results themselves would be ‘just too hard and complicated. And at the time, one of the computer scientists hit back. He totally debunked the ‘There’s no visible evidence canard.’
“How might a foreign government hack America’s voting machines to change the outcome of a presidential election? Here’s one possible scenario. First, the attackers would probe election offices well in advance in order to find ways to break into their computers. Closer to the election, when it was clear from polling data which states would have close electoral margins, the attackers might spread malware into voting machines in some of these states, rigging the machines to shift a few percent of the vote to favor their desired candidate. This malware would likely be designed to remain inactive during pre-election tests, do its dirty business during the election, then erase itself when the polls close. A skilled attacker’s work might leave no visible signs — though the country might be surprised when results in several close states were off from pre-election polls.”
“Could anyone be brazen enough to try such an attack? A few years ago, I might have said that sounds like science fiction, but 2016 has seen unprecedented cyberattacks aimed at interfering with the election. This summer, attackers broke into the email system of the Democratic National Committee and, separately, into the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, and leaked private messages. Attackers infiltrated the voter registration systems of two states, Illinois and Arizona, and stole voter data. And there’s evidence that hackers attempted to breach election offices in several other states.”
Heck, we now know they infiltrated the voter registration systems of at least 21 states and maybe as many as 39 states.
But it’s clear that simply hand waving the question away-‘There’s no evidence’ doesn’t answer the question.
“The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.”
At the time Jill Stein had tried to lead an effort but, of course, the recounts were ultimately stopped by Republicans in the three swing states.
“Another crucial point from Alex Halderman-the computer scientist we’re quoting here-is that you don’t need to hack even country in the country. That’s a false difficulty in hacking an election. You’d focus on the states that were likely to have the closet margin. Remember, Trump and many GOP operatives had a lot of stolen Dem voter files. You’d only have rig a few machines not every single machine in the country.”
I want to quote this small paragraph one more time for emphasis:
“Closer to the election, when it was clear from polling data which states would have close electoral margins, the attackers might spread malware into voting machines in some of these states, rigging the machines to shift a few percent of the vote to favor their desired candidate. This malware would likely be designed to remain inactive during pre-election tests, do its dirty business during the election, then erase itself when the polls close. A skilled attacker’s work might leave no visible signs — though the country might be surprised when results in several close states were off from pre-election polls.”
This is why the no evidence canard is meaningless. It might leave no visible signs-again, if you’re a criminal that’s your goal. Incidentally, here was a few tweets by Guccicer 2.0 on November 4.
— GUCCIFER 2.0 (@GUCCIFER_2) November 4, 2016
I'll be an independent observer at the U.S. #Elections2016
I call on other hackers to monitor the elections from inside the system
— GUCCIFER 2.0 (@GUCCIFER_2) November 4, 2016
P.S. So the Gravis poll against Peter King NY2 and it has good news-almost too good to believe.
In my March poll I trailed King by 11 and thought that was very good news. Now Gravis has me up by 10? Still, the moment of truth is next week when Gravis writes up the press release.
I can use any help I can get at this point-volunteers or supporters who live in NY 2. Donations whatever your zip code. These days we can’t just support a local Dem we need a Dem Congress. Which is why I’ve donated few hundred to Jon Ossoff.
Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House-$5 or $10 can do so much.
If you feel that you can’t I, of course, understand-who is rich these days? But please do me one favor: ask yourself privately, mentally, if you really can’t spare $5 dollars. If you can honestly say you can’t, no worries.
We can have a Dem Congress, we must have a Dem Cogress, and we will.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.