Possible Connection between the FISA Amendment and Election Fraud 2008

[Time for change]

There are numerous possible reasons why the Bush administration fought so hard for so long to destroy our Fourth Amendment with a law that couldn’t possibly improve upon the then existing FISA law for the purpose of identifying terrorists.

The purpose of our Fourth Amendment is to protect us against unnecessary and malicious intrusion of government into our private lives. We now know that J. Edgar Hoover amassed tremendous power as FBI Director by wiretapping thousands of individuals and organizations to gather information, which he then used for blackmail and for otherwise shaping events to his liking. God only knows how George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have used and intend to use the information gained as a result of past illegal wiretapping and future wiretapping performed under the recently passed unconstitutional FISA amendment.

One possible use of the power handed to the Bush administration as a result of this law would be for election fraud. This would be done through manipulation of vote counts as they’re transmitted over the phone lines, under the guise of attempting to intercept communication between terrorists. This is how Eliot D. Cohen explains it in a recent article posted at the Election Defense Alliance:

Electronic voting is essentially tied to the phone lines because all votes cast in individual precincts must pass through the phone lines on their way to be tabulated at the main tabulation center. This makes it possible to electronically reconfigure votes before they even arrive at a central tabulation point by embedding the appropriate software in the lines, thereby destroying the prospect of a fair election outcome…. votes that disappear into the void of cyberspace only to reappear at the other end of a wire in an altered state… Independent inspection of voting machines and careful monitoring of election practices may therefore prove insufficient when cyberspace is not also safeguarded.

In the above scenario, the manipulation would occur as vote counts are transmitted over the phone lines, from the precincts where vote counts are initially counted or tabulated (“pre-tabulator” counts), to the county central tabulators, which tabulate the votes from every precinct in the county, to arrive at a final county vote count (“post-tabulator” counts.)

There are two very important points to make about this process: First, this manipulation can occur regardless of the method for counting votes at the individual precincts, as long as the final count is transmitted to the county central tabulator over the phone lines. The second important point is that manipulation of central tabulator counts is likely to be substantially more efficient than hacking of individual electronic voting machines at the precinct level. Rather than dealing with more than a thousand different voting machines, all it would take is a program to change votes coming in over the phone lines or within the central tabulator itself.


Examples of possible central tabulator mediated fraud in recent elections

In considering the following examples, keep in mind that the new powers granted to the Bush administration by virtue of the recent FISA Amendment could make this process a lot easier:

Baldwin County, Alabama, 2002 Governor election – Riley vs. Siegelman
On Election Day 2002, the initial vote count for Governor for Baldwin County, reported from the Baldwin County central tabulator at 10:45 p.m., was quite surprising to say the least. It reported: Riley (R) 30,142, Siegelman (D) 11,820, and the Libertarian candidate, John Sophocleus, 13,190. Although it was expected that Siegelman would lose Baldwin County, the margin of the loss was far more than expected, as he had lost Baldwin County in the Governor’s race in 1998 by only a little over four thousand votes. Most important, the idea of his losing to the Libertarian candidate was not plausible.

So, “someone” from the sheriff’s office went into the tabulation room to look into the matter and returned a few minutes later, announcing that the problem had been fixed. The new totals, which were reported at 11:04 p.m. and picked up and distributed by the AP, were: Riley 31,052, Siegelman 19,070, and Sophocleus a much more reasonable 937. The pickup of 7,250 votes by Siegelman was enough to give him a slim state-wide victory, which was reported as such by the AP.

But two minutes later, at 11:06 p.m., the results were changed again, reducing Siegelman’s total back down to 12,736, a decrease of 6,334 votes, which gave the election back to Riley. William Pfeifer, the Baldwin County Chairman of the Democratic Party, was just outside the tabulating room at 11:04 when the second report, giving Siegelman the victory, was announced. But he didn’t find out about the reversal until he returned home and turned on the news.

Warren County, Ohio, 2004 Presidential election
Following poll closing on Election Day 2004, election officials in Warren County Ohio made the decision to tabulate the Warren County votes in private, locking reporters and other interested parties out of the administration building. Their first excuse for doing this was that the presence of reporters could interfere with the vote tabulation. Later, they cited a “national security emergency” for their decision. They claimed that they learned of this “national security emergency” from the FBI – a claim that was soon denied by the FBI. Nor would the official who explained the reason for the lockdown identify the FBI agent who allegedly notified him of the “national security emergency”.

It may be significant that this event occurred towards the end of the evening, when it still looked very much as if Kerry would win Ohio. By the time the Warren County votes had been “counted”, victory had all but slipped away from the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

There was never an investigation of this incident by either the Ohio or federal government.

Cuyahoga County, Ohio, 2004 Presidential election
After much studying of the vote in Cleveland, I came to suspect that many thousands of votes were deleted from that heavily Democratic city, as discussed in this thread. My initial suspicions were aroused because of an anomalous relationship between voter turnout in Cleveland and the number of machines per voter, as discussed in Section IV, page 3, of the DNC report on the Ohio election, and because of very low turnout in many of Cleveland’s precincts, as initially reported by Richard Hayes Phillips. My suspicion was further aroused when I realized that the very low voter turnout in Cleveland was reported despite the fact that voting lines were quite long throughout much of the city, as described in this thread. And the observation by a Green Party observer to the Ohio recount of several anomalies didn’t serve to allay my suspicions.

When I tried to ascertain pre-tabulator vote counts for Cleveland I couldn’t find anyone who knew what they were. I contacted Michael Vu, the Director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, to request those counts from him, and he promised to look for them, but he repeatedly failed to get back with me on this.

So finally, after discussing this issue with fellow DUer and Ohioan, adagiopop, he undertook an effort to obtain pre-calculator vote counts from Cuyahoga County. His initial efforts at this task identified several probable anomalies, as described in this thread. However, adagiopop was never able to complete that investigation.


Did the examples noted above involve manipulation of county central tabulators?

We will never know for sure whether or not the above noted examples actually involved central tabulator manipulation. There are two reasons for this. First, no valid recount was ever conducted in any of these elections. No recount at all was ever conducted in Baldwin County in 2002, despite the very suspicious circumstances and requests for a recount by the losing party, Don Siegelman. A recount was performed for the 2004 Ohio Presidential election, but it was not conducted according to rules designed to ensure an accurate recount, resulting in the sentencing of two election workers in Cuyahoga County for rigging the recount.

The other reason why we will never know whether central tabulator manipulation occurred in these (or other) cases is that there was no effort made at the time of poll closings to obtain precinct level pre-tabulator vote counts, for comparison with post-tabulator counts. As I noted above, I tried to do that for the 2004 Presidential election in Cuyahoga County, but that was several months after the election, the trail had run dry, and it was not possible to complete a full investigation (though a preliminary investigation resulted in numerous mismatches between pre- and post-calculator counts.)

I did speak with Ellen Theisen of Voters Unite! to ask her advice on how I could better obtain pre-tabulator counts. She told me that persons interested in investigating the 2004 election were having a hell of a time trying to get pre-tabulator vote counts from anywhere in the country. Those efforts had been almost universally unsuccessful.


How central tabulator fraud can be quickly identified and addressed

This is not rocket science. The only thing that the county central tabulators do (or rather, are supposed to do) is add up the votes from all the precincts in the county, to arrive at a final county total.

The pre-tabulator counts at the precinct level are generally made available to interested parties in all precincts, following poll closing, as soon as or shortly after the vote counts in the precinct are tabulated. Election laws on this matter differ from one jurisdiction to another. In Montgomery County, Maryland, where I have worked as a poll watcher, the results are posted at the precinct after the precinct votes are tabulated. I could be wrong about this, but I believe that there are few if any precincts in our country where the pre-tabulator counts would or could be legally withheld from the public.

If just one volunteer could be recruited for every precinct in states where close elections for President or other major offices are expected, we could obtain pre-tabulator counts for President (or other offices too) for those precincts. It would be a simple matter then, for any state or county results that seemed suspicious, to quickly compare pre-tabulator to post-tabulator counts as soon as the official results are announced. Any major discrepancies would immediately point to likely sources of fraud via manipulation of the post-tabulator count. Not only that, but the approximate magnitude of the manipulated votes would also be immediately apparent. Given that information, in a close election, a Presidential candidate would be foolish to concede the election until the discrepancies could be further investigated.

[EFerrari]

1. Exactly. Thank you!

[alllyingwhores]

112. Can someone please remind me why Obama voted for it??? GOBAMAGOBAMAGOBAMA!

[EFerrari]

122. All our Demcrats are playing it very safe.

And no, I don't agree with them.

[tritsofme]

2. Oh god.

These vote fraud nutters never stop.

[Tunkamerica]

18. are you for real?

even if you believe nothing the "nutters" say shouldn't you be glad someone is trying to pay attention to this issue? Would you prefer no one looked out for election fraud? Because I am quite sure if no one was looking then it would *magically* start occurring more and more. Perhaps these "nutters" are making it 1% more risky for fraud minded officials. 1% more likely that they'll be sloppy and get caught. I'll take the extra scrutiny if there's even the chance that something untoward is happening and that scrutiny makes it less appealing to those that would think of rigging our elections.

If you were being sarcastic then I'm sorry. If not, perhaps your vote doesn't matter to you, but it does to me and to most other Americans. Perhaps the real question isn't whether they'll ever stop, but what will happen when they do?

[pnwmom]

23. Are you including the scientists at Princeton University, Johns Hopkins, etc.?

What exactly is your expertise?

[tkmorris]

26. I see a nutter too!

Keep trying trits. Ignore anyone who says it's just getting kind of sad at this point, and ESPECIALLY ignore anyone who says they see through your game and marvels over how you are one of the last of a dying breed. Your methodology is an inspiration to posters everywhere, a true revelation to us all. It's good to know there is still at least one of you left around.

[glitch]

64. It's probably a bot, programmed to respond to any election fraud post anywhere.

That's why its response can be so generic.

[jeff30997]

92. A bot ?

I would say a butt but it would be immature.

[Time for change]

31. I certainly hope they don't

If we fail to take seriously the possibility or likelihood of election fraud, I believe that democracy is finished in our country.

[fascisthunter]

39. vote fraud or election fraud?

who are the nutters?

[Raster]

42. Oh god. Are you for real?

Are you really this fucking lame or just having to work extra hard to appear this way?

Perhaps you'd like to educate yourself before spewing? Just a thought...

[helderheid]

54. "vote fraud nutters"?

Wow. Hello? It's the clue phone! IT'S FOR YOU!

[Pacifist Patriot]

59. Not exactly a convincing argument to refute election fraud.

You would likely have more of an impact if you could rationally spell out the flaws in the suppositions.

[StClone]

60. lol. In baseball you'd a missed the good pitches

Lord the mass of information indicating a multi-level sham election is not only legend but fact:



http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0978843142/ref=d...

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nam78_two]

87. Good-I hope those "nutters" don't stop.nt

[Buzz Clik]

120. It is amazing.

We have seen voting irregularities, and they cannot be denied. But I always love it when they tie it in to every other issue that jazzes them.

FISA and voting? Wow.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. More excellent information.

Thank you.

[mod mom]

4. OH SOS Blackwell used SmarTech (GOP Partisan Corp) to host OH SOS election night site:

old file on smartech:

Some other sites hosted by SmartTech
gop.com
rnc.org (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.rnc.org )
georgebush.com
bushenergy.com
gopteamleader.com
republicanvictoryteam.com
rnchq.org
johnmccain.com
speakergingrich.com

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=SMARTECHCO...

BTW for those following the US Atty Scandal and the 3,000 emails turned over, you'll find the name SmarTech come up. It seems the WH used both it's internal server and one connected to the RNC to communicate with. TPM.com is providing excellent coverage of this.


Ken Blackwell outsourced the design of the Election Night Project to Mike Connell who is a GOP operative and the principal of New Media Communications and GovTech Solutions. Their association may go back as far as the George H. W. Bush era. Connell's long-established association in the online political, campaign and fundraising arenas, in addition to his technological expertise, made him a shoe-in for government and non-government services where pay-to-play is the standard..

On April 7, 2000, Blackwell certified the woman-owned (Connell's wife, Heather), small business that Mike Connell spunoff of New Media Communications in order to provide government contracting service a 'non-partisan' face. When Blackwell stamped 'approval' on that incorporation, he'd previously approved the merger of DCI Group and NewMedia Communications.

So what exactly have we stumbled onto with the SMARTech Corp nameserver?
1. We know that the RNC has large contracts with a company named SMARTech Corp.

2. We know the owner of the company is a fairly large contributor to the RNC.

3. We know that not only does the company have a contract with the RNC, it also has contracts with many other right-wing organizations. These include political action committees, a right-wing election results company, and even FrontPage Magazine.

4. We know that the same nameserver as well as e-mail server is used to provide the White House political staff with non-government e-mail. This may be required by law, the avoidance of using public funds for political gain or it may be illegal because government business appears to have taken place on this server. That's a extremely wide range of possibilities, and it means someone needs to look into this matter further to narrow it down.

5. We know, most strikingly that the Secretary of State of Ohio was hosted on this same server. That's pretty damn interesting, because that website provided the most official-appearing results in the 2004 election. It also suggests that a government contract in Ohio was corruptly given to a crony company.

Right now the Ohio Secretary of State site is hosted on an official government address, but we can use the Internet Archive's WaybackMachine to find that at one time is used this address, listed as using SMARTech's nameserver:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031010082405/http://ohsoso...



***UPDATE***
Here is the website used to find all of this out, it's the list of other sites that use the same nameserver as gwb43.com, listed in the DOJ US Attorneygate document dump:
http://www.robtex.com/dns/gwb43.com.html

edit: old links...info can be found here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=GovTech_Solu...

also Joseph Cannon was covering it.

There were screensavers from election night that had improbable results for Lucas and Montgomery counties, the poof numbers changed. Lines of communication were used to change results.

[Time for change]

6. Are you saying that SmartTech had control of the county central tabulators on Election Night 2004?

And do you know how many central tabulators in what states is SmartTech poised to control in 2008?

[mod mom]

27. "controlled the technology that allowed the tally of the vote in Ohio's 88 counties to be reported..

"controlled the technology that allowed the tally of the vote in Ohio's 88 counties to be reported to the media and voters" in 2004 according to this article:

The GOP's cyber election hit squad
by Steven Rosenfeld and Bob Fitrakis
April 22, 2007

-snip

Numerous tech-savvy bloggers, starting with the online investigative consortium epluribusmedia.org and their November 2006 article cross-posted by contributor luaptifer to Dailykos, and Joseph Cannon's blog at Cannonfire.blogspot.com, outed the RNC tech network. That web-hosting firm is SMARTech Corp. of Chattanooga, TN, operating out of the basement in the old Pioneer Bank building. The firm hosts scores of Republican websites, including georgewbush.com, gop.com and rnc.org.

The software created for the Ohio secretary of state’s Election Night 2004 website was created by GovTech Solutions, a firm co-founded by longtime GOP computing guru Mike Connell. He also redesigned the Bush campaign's website in 2000 and told "Inside Business" magazine in 1999, "I wouldn't be where I am today without the Bush campaign and the Bush family because the Bushes truly are about family and I’m loyal to my network."

Ohio's Cedarville University, a Christian school with 3,100 students, issued a press release on January 13, 2005 describing how faculty member Dr. Alan Dillman’s computing company Government Consulting Resources, Ltd, worked with these Republican-connected companies to tally the vote on Election Night 2004.

"Dillman personally led the effort from the GCR side, teaming with key members of Blackwell's staff," the release said. "GCR teamed with several other firms – including key players such as GovTech Solutions, which performed the software development – to deliver the end result. SMARTech provided the backup and additional system capacity, and Mercury Interactive performed the stress testing."

On Election Night 2004, the Republican Party not only controlled the vote-counting process in Ohio, the final presidential swing state, through a secretary of state who was a co-chair of the Bush campaign, but it also controlled the technology that allowed the tally of the vote in Ohio's 88 counties to be reported to the media and voters.


-snip
http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2553

[Time for change]

32. Thank you for that information

That would seem to be another big piece to the puzzle.

[L. Coyote]

8. Someone burn this false flag already!!

This whole SMARTECT story is a ruse to distract from the real crimes and fraud.
There is nothing to it, except the usual nepotism of giving the contract to a Bush supporter.

[glitch]

5. BINGO. Who needs to worry about individual machines and their telltale trails?

No more mysterious techs showing up to fix last minute glitches. No more seeing your vote switch right before your eyes.

Paper ballots hand counted at the precinct.

[L. Coyote]

7. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, 2004 Presidential election

You missed the real story for Ohio 2004.
Votes were counted other than as cast.

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched to Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html

Recounts and central tabulators are not even part of the fraud.

[Time for change]

9. There were many different ways in which fraud took place in Ohio in 2004

There was massive voter purging. There was a massive breakdown of voting machines in Franklin County, especially in the poor precincts. And there were a great many dirty tricks to disenfranchise voters, as documented in John Conyers' excellent report, "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio".

How on earth would you know that central tabulators weren't part of the fraud? Just because you've spent a great deal of time studying one particular fraud method, how can you tell us that there weren't many others? And how many votes have you shown were lost in Ohio through the ballot order rotation problem that you studied?


Anyhow, the central point of this post is not specifically how the election in Ohio in 2004 was stolen. My central points are these:

1. Manipulation of the post-tabulator vote count represents a real potential for stealing massive numbers of votes in presidential elections or other races.

2. The new FISA law exacerbates that potential by giving the Bush administration much easier access to our phone lines.

3. Nobody knows with any degree of certainty how many votes have been stolen in presidential or other elections via manipulation of the post-tabulator vote count, because it's never been systematically studied.

4. The best way to systematically study the issue is to collect pre-tabulator vote counts right at poll closing time and compare them to post-tabulator counts as soon as the election results are announced.

5. By developing a nation-wide system such as I've described here we can go a long way towards preventing an election being stolen through manipulation of the post-tabulator vote count.


If you have an argument with any of that I'm ready to listen.

[L. Coyote]

20. "How on earth would you know that central tabulators weren't part of the fraud?"

U: "How on earth would you know that central tabulators weren't part of the fraud?"

If there is some evidence they were, I'm interested in reading that article too.
Meanwhile, why not examine and focus on the evidence that exists for actual fraud?
The evidence indicates the fraud came before the central tabulation, so why misdirect the Cuyahoga 2004 focus now?

[Time for change]

29. The links are in my post -- And I didn't say that I KNOW that central tabulators were involved

You don't think it's possible that there was more than one mechanism of fraud?

And you didn't answer my question about how many net votes were lost through the ballot order rotation problem that you investigated. When I looked into this and controlled for polling location it came to about 10,000 votes in Cuyahoga County.

[mod mom]

49. DUer Jsamuel made 2 screen savers from election night '04 of Montgomery & Lucas

Counties posted at the OH SOS site. They were obvious mistakes. I attempted an advance search for these but could not find them (I don't know what I do wrong but I always have problems w advanced searches). If someone has saved these, please post them:

[L. Coyote]

71. U: "...10,000 votes in Cuyahoga County."

Given the method, how is it possible to determine the number?
There is little evidence after the fact if the theft ballot-switching.

The statistical inference in certain sub-sets, where some determinations
are possible, is that the number would be about a 6% shift in results margin
for about half-a-million voters who voted at multiple ballot order locations.

(PS, I don't answer totally lame rhetorical questions.)

[Time for change]

76. Lame rhetorical question?

You've done a great deal of research on ballot order rotation problems, and you use that research to denigrate any other assertions of fraud by other mechanisms.

In what way is it a rhetorical question to ask you to tell us how many votes you think that cost the Kerry ticket -- especially since you claim that it was the only fraud committed in Ohio in 2008?

[defendandprotect]

77. Also think we are being highly naive not to consider . . .

the involvement of the CIA . . .

They fixed elections all over the world ---

and they're doing it here ---


With the death of Bill Buckley some interesting documents came tumbling out ---

It seems that the CIA was funding GOP/right-wing candidates via the front companies

set up for them by Howard Hughes' corporation --


Two of the right-wingers named were Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Gerald Ford.



Right wing religious fanatics have probably also been helpful!

[peacetalksforall]

57. Your logic is amazing. I thought it was a citizen's duty to learn all the

ways votes are stolen. For me it's to show all the ways the batallions of Christian Republican generals and soldiers work against the citizens and deny their rights. I want to know evrything about their war plan. And I consider all fronts equal.

I am amazed and insulted by your position if I understand you correctly.

[L. Coyote]

69. As if we have not done that? We don't need to add extra non-existing methods

and we need to focus on the actual evidence.

And, it is the responsibility of government to
do something about it when evidence is presented.
Dems and Rs alike have so far failed uniformly!!

(Obviously, you do not understand me correctly!)

[emlev]

61. Methods used to steal Ohio are laid out in detail in this new book

Witness To a Crime: A Citizens' Audit of an American Election by Richard Hayes Phillips, available at his website.

Richard Hayes Phillips is currently on a book tour in California, with more appearances in southern California on Wednesday and Thursday (6/16-17) and northern California (from Santa Cruz to Ukiah) from Friday 6/18 through the following Wednesday.

Book tour moves to other states after that.
Full schedule at the above link.

[L. Coyote]

72. That is part of the picture. It seems a narrowly focused research report

that employed only certain methods. Wish more info was released.

Those results are still not available to the public except by paying for them!
What are the motives of this author, and why are the results not released online?

[emlev]

86. The book includes photographs of the evidence

I don't know what you're talking about. Phillips went to great lengths to obtain the actual evidence, and much of it is reproduced in the CD accompanying the book, including over 1200 photographs (ballots that were tampered with, forged pollbooks, etc.).

[matt819]

10. Election Observers

I said this in 2004, and I will repeat it now. We need a properly constituted and internationally recognized collection of election observers operating under impartial auspices. The Carter Center has undertaken this in years past in foreign elections. They chose not to play this role in the US in 2004. I would argue once more for an international election observer corps to undertake the actions described above, and others, to ensure that these are free and fair elections.

[mod mom]

51. While I agree international observers should be used, they may offer a false sense

of security. While they will expose blatant disenfranchisement say through improper challenges they will not be allowed to see manipulation that can occur through manipulation of the proprietary source code. HAVA was a way to funnel vast amounts of $ into highly partisan corporations that control the internal workings of the machines (and thus outcomes of elections)

[defendandprotect]

78. Pres. Carter has made clear that we don't have a system which

they would be willing to vouch for ---

we have to have a popular vote -- no electoral college, for one.

[Time for change]

84. I heartily agree

But I thought that the Carter Center asked to do this in 2004 and he was turned down by the Bush administration. That's my memory of what happened.

[Selatius]

95. Individual state gov'ts have that authority to allow observers, not the federal gov't

If a state like Ohio or Florida denies the presence of international observers, then it defeats the purpose of international observation of elections even if other states agree to international poll monitors.

[Arugula Latte]

11. I feel sick.

[Time for change]

106. Didn't mean to make you sick

This is preventable. With enough vigilance, if we take this seriously we can stop them from getting away with it.

[snot]

12. Has anyone pointed this out --

"If just one volunteer could be recruited for every precinct in states where close elections for President or other major offices are expected, we could obtain pre-tabulator counts for President (or other offices too) for those precincts. It would be a simple matter then, for any state or county results that seemed suspicious, to quickly compare pre-tabulator to post-tabulator counts as soon as the official results are announced. Any major discrepancies would immediately point to likely sources of fraud via manipulation of the post-tabulator count. Not only that, but the approximate magnitude of the manipulated votes would also be immediately apparent. Given that information, in a close election, a Presidential candidate would be foolish to concede the election until the discrepancies could be further investigated."

-- to Obama et al.? Does anyone think he or other Dem leaders grasp the problem?

(That's one of the most mystifying aspects of all this.)

[Time for change]

30. Not that I know of

Most Democratic Congresspersons don't seem to take this very seriously, including Obama. Maybe they don't want to be seen as "conspiracy theorists".

I am in the process of discussing this with the Election Defense Alliance, which I volunteer for. If this problem is going to be addressed, I think it will be addressed through grassroots election integrity organizations, not through our Democratic elected representatives.

[peacetalksforall]

58. One of the reasons for my growing intense disrespect for Dem leaders

is the way they have not cared one little bit except for the usual Conyers and Kucinch and a few others.

They appear to be oblivious and will not speak out and will not do anything. There is no leadership on this issue that goes anywhere except for hearings. Will they change?

It's the rest of those who work at it on or not on their own time and the citizens who try to learn and a few who investigate.

People don't care if they steal. People don't care if thieves steal from them. And leaders get to get away with it all.

And the world laugh at our fireworks declarations of freedoms and the right to vote. All lies. We deserve to be laughed at.

[defendandprotect]

79. Of course they understand: Weren't the Sununu changes for Poppy done in this way?

As I recall it . . . ???

The question is why are the Democrats responding so passively to these steals . . . ???

[kimmerspixelated]

97. Exactly!

[bleever]

13. Wherever there is a vulnerability, it will be exploited.

This one is, as you say, perhaps the biggest one of all.

Add in the fact that the tabulators are based on Microsoft Access and easily hacked (even wirelessly), and what we have comes nowhere near having the faintest resemblance to a secure process.

[diva77]

14. the pre-tabulator count can be manipulated in Los Angeles County

the ESS inka-vote plus PBC (precinct ballot counter) tabulates with proprietary software all day long as each ballot is cast; there is never any chance of getting a transparent pre-tabulator count at the precinct level

on edit: incidentally, this feature is in violation of the CA Elections Code which prohibits opening of the ballot box until the close of the polls -- the inkavote plus is like an open ballot box with private companies able to have access while the polls are open.


15152. Neither the elections official, any member of a precinct
board, nor any other person shall count any votes, either for a
ballot proposition or candidate, until the close of the polls in that
county. After that time, the ballots for all candidates and ballot
propositions voted upon solely within the county shall be counted and
the results of the balloting made public. However, the results for
any candidate or ballot proposition also voted upon in another county
or counties shall not be made public until after all the polls in
that county and the other county or counties have closed. This
paragraph applies regardless of whether the counting is done by
manual tabulation or by a vote tabulating device.

[Time for change]

33. Yes, that's a big problem

Wherever you can't get a transparent pre-tabulator vote, comparison of the pre-tabulator with the post-tabulator vote is not going to solve the whole problem.

If it's illegal in California to do it that way, how are they getting away with it?

[diva77]

74. Where do I begin with my reply?? Suffice it to say that citizens simply do not

have the resources to overcome the biggest scam on democracy of our time. The burden of proof for the efficacy of computerized voting has been misplaced from the beginning -- the burden should have been placed on the technology to prove that every vote would unfailingly be counted as cast and that the voter would be able to cast his vote anonymously and have it be counted publicly. That burden of proof has NEVER been met. Even from the era of punchcards.

[defendandprotect]

80. Punch cards were eliminated because they were doing a better job . . .

than anything up to that point --- and you had MATERIAL to analyze if you questioned the

results . . . !!!

Notice that the 2000 election made punchcards scapegoats -- and an excuse to bring

in more computers.

[bjobotts]

15. Comey and Ashcroft were ready to resign rather than do what congress just did

On eof the fired US attorneys stated that this illegal wiretapping program was why Bush replaced Ashcroft with Gonzales... because Ashcroft would not sign off on it. Comey thought he could get congress to investigate and bust this illegal operation so he came forward with that hospital room visit story. But alas, Congress did just the opposite and made this felony spying legal and covered all Bush's tracks with immunity so we could never find out what the administration was actually doing. All the republicans and the dem leadership are complicit in covering up these felonies making this the most corrupt action so many members of congress have been involved in since the founding of our nation. They were and are spying on dem donors, and all civil liberty groups as well as the Obama campaign. It's worse than pathetic.

[defendandprotect]

81. Agree . . . and it's been going on 8 years . . . imagine what they've picked up in that time!

[EFerrari]

16. Kick

[NBachers]

17. Election Theft 3.0

[Norrin Radd]

19. kr

[bean fidhleir]

21. Only if the totals are transmitted without encryption

If they're encrypted (same technology that keeps your creditcard number safe when you're making a purchase via a web site) then the numbers cannot be manipulated enroute.

Moreover, I'd like to see a demonstration of how such manipulation would work. It would require the bad guys intercepting the real transmission, analyzing it, and *completely replacing* it on the fly. That'd be a good trick! The normal kind of eavesdropping setup wouldn't work, where someone jacks into the line and takes a copy of the data. The original data needs to be *replaced*, not copied. A high-class trick.

I think this group of fearmongers doesn't understand technology.

[no limit]

36. To be fair I don't think it would be that hard to alter the data

but you are absolutely right. I posted the same point below before seeing yours, if the communication is encrypted there is no way to alter the data in trasmission.

[EOTE]

43. But what form of encryption is being used?

Considering all this information is proprietary, we have no idea what form of encryption is being used. It could be extremely weak encryption, or it's possible that those who wish to modify the data are in the know and have access to the encryption key. The point is that because this information is so secretive, there's no way of determining how open to manipulation this data is.

[no limit]

47. If what you were saying was true FISA doesn't come in to play at all

if they already know a way to decrypt this they don't need FISA.

But I would guess the encryption used is using some kind of trusted root authority like most SSL web sites you visit. This form of encryption is virtually impossible to crack.

[EOTE]

66. I see what you're saying.

I don't believe they'd need FISA to do this either. Seems to me that these people aren't terribly likely to ask for permission before committing their various felonies.

[Time for change]

37. Yes, I don't understand the technology well enough to explain how it's done

But I very much doubt that you or anyone else udnerstands it well enough to prove that it can't be done.

If it's encrypted, what if someone who's aware of the code is in on the vote manipulation? What if software is available to solve the code? What if it's not encrypted in the first place.

My point is that we don't know. So rather than trust the process to work honestly -- in view of what we know about the powerful and immoral people who are running our country -- why not keep our eye on the process by adding some checks to make sure that the votes add up properly?

[truedelphi]

46. Ihave never in all the time spent looking at the electronic voting machinery issues

Been told that the tabulation is encrypted.

In fact, I doubt if most Registrars of Voters at the County level would even know what the word encrypted meant.

[liberal N proud]

22. Manipulation before the numbers were ever public

And no one would ever know. Or be able to do anything about it.

[Time for change]

34. Yes, that's another big problem

When DRE voting machines are used, especially if there is no paper trail, the pre-tabulator counts cannot be relied upon either. That's a problem that will need to be fixed by Congress.

But there are still plenty of places in the country where pre-tabulator counts are reasonably reliable. And even where DRE machines are used, it still seems to me that it would be a lot easier to commit fraud at the central tabulation point than to rig the vote in every machine.

[bertman]

65. "That's a problem that need to be fixed by Congress." That, my friend, is an oxymoron of a

statement. In the last 20 years have they ever really fixed anything?

Unless, of course, you meant congress of a . . . . different nature.

Oh never mind.

Didn't mean to derail this fine thread. But that comment was just sitting there like a ripe pumpkin on the vine.

[Time for change]

104. True

I should have said that it will need to be fixed by a different Congress.

[barbtries]

24. i tried to volunteer in NC

specifically saying that i wanted to be a poll watcher. that was 4 weeks ago, and the democratic party in NC has yet to get back to me.

[Time for change]

105. The organization for which I do poll watching is non-partisan

And I believe that most reputable organizations that set up poll watching efforts are non-partisan -- though it is true that the good majority of poll watchers, even those working for non-partisan organizations, are Democrats.

Anyhow, my point is that you might want to try looking outside of the Democratic Party if you want to do poll watching.

[barbtries]

109. like maybe the league of women voters?

i hadn't considered that there would be any other place to volunteer. now i wonder.

on edit: thanks - i just signed up http://www.nationalcampaignforfairelections.org /

hope i didn't jump too quick! wouldn't it suck if it turned out to be a republican front? lol

[Time for change]

115. Great

I doubt that any organization interested in election integrity would be a Republican front. They don't even want to admit that election fraud occurs, except by individual voters.

[nightrain]

25. truly horrifying and likely

We have thieves "in charge"--in the White House, and both Houses of Congress.

[williesgirl]

28. Holy Shit! Thanks for posting. Just sent to Sen Webb - we've been corresponding on this - rec'd

[no limit]

35. I would hope these votes traveled on the wire using SSL making it impossible to alter

what the OP is referring to is a man in the middle type attack. You would have to do this on an unsecure connection, if these machines use some kind of certificate authority for authentication doing what the OP is suggesting would be impossible. And I have a hard time these machines don't use some form of SSL, I don't have time to look in to deeper right now.

[Time for change]

38. Yes, I too would hope it would be impossible to alter

That's what they said about DRE machines until they were tested and found that indeed the vote counts could be altered, quite easily.

I gave an example above, in the Baldwin County 2002 Governor's race, where they came up with 3 different vote counts within a span of a few minutes. Obviously the counts were altered, it's just a question whether it was purposeful or not.

Similarly, we also know that in Volusia County, FL, 2000, the reason that Florida was first called for George W. Bush is that Volusia County registered a minus 16,000 votes for Gore. And there are many other examples.

What level of trust do we have to have in these systems before we simply say, "Ok, we'll trust that the system works, without adding additional checks that are likely to pick up problems".

[no limit]

40. With all due respect I don't think you understand the technical aspect here

If in fact these transmissions are encrypted they can not be altered before getting to the target, period. This is one of the main points of encryption.

If in fact these transmissions are not encrypted, something I find extremely difficult to believe, then altering the data during transmission is a very real threat. but I have not seen any source to say that these transmissions are not encrypted, and you would have to provide me a source that says they aren't for me to believe you. Because for someone that has worked in IT for a long time the government would have the be a total fuck up (much worse than we imagined) to transmit this kind of information unencrypted. And if that was the case I'm sure hell would have been raised about this before. Remember, plenty of technical oganizations looked over this entire process, as you said they proved a lot of security exploits in the system. The data traveling unencrypted was not one of them, as far as I know.

Also, keep in mind. If the data is in fact not encrypted then you don't actually need to have access to the telecom systems to make these kinds of changes. Anyone with an internet connection and enough knowledge could do this. So your point that FISA is anyway related to this is probably not accurate.

[Time for change]

44. Right, I don't understand the technology very well

But I am associated with election integrity organizations who believe this to be a significant potential problem -- significant enough that they have spent a good deal of time trying to obtain pre-calculator counts to compare with post-calculator counts, unsuccessfully because the trail was too cold by the time they undertook their investigation.

My son has also worked in IT for a long time. I've discussed this with him, and his initial impression is that you're wrong that it is impossible to do what I've described here. We will get back to you later on this. He is reading my post and your responses, and one of us will respond more fully shortly.

[no limit]

50. If I am wrong please by all means point out how in detail

The problem is that as far as encryption goes I know I am not wrong on this point. And if I am coming off a hostile please note I'm not. I just think there is a lot of arrogance in this area for a lot of people because they don't understand how computer networks work. And all I'm trying to do here is try to point out to you how this works the best way I can.

What you are suggesting in the OP is a man in the middle attack. A 3rd party comes in between a communication, alters the data, and then sends it back out to the intended recipient. This is an attack as old as the network it self and is extremely easy to do.

When you use encryption you use some kind of trusted root authority to make sure that the data has not been altered during the transmission. Most encryption now days is done using SSL with a certificate from a trusted root authority such as Verisign. If in fact this data is sent using SSL, which I have every reason to believe it is (if it wasnt Im sure hell would have been raised by the groups you are assicated with), then again, there is absolutely no way to modify this data during transmission without the receiving party knowing that the data was modified.

Election fraud is a very serious issue. But I think you a missing the mark here.

[Time for change]

55. No, you're not coming across to me as hostile

Perhaps the key phrase is "without the receiving party knowing that the data was modified".

As you are probably aware, our last two presidential elections were decided in states where the Secretary of States in charge of the elections were chairpersons of the Bush re-election committee for their state, and neither of which had an ounce of integrity. So it is reasonable to assume that in those two elections the "receiving party" might have known that the data was modified, but that didn't really matter.

And it is also true that the people with whom we are dealing here are very wealthy and powerful, and would have virtually unlimited money with which to buy off the "receiving party", no matter who they are. So, I don't think that we can routinely count on the receiving party to tell us whether or not the data was modified.

[no limit]

62. And there is a chance that this information could be modified once it gets there

but not during transmission if that transmission is in fact encrypted using a trusted root authority.

I can certainly understand how strongly you feel about this issue, what happened in Ohio in 2004 was an absolutely disgrace to our democracy. But we have to be careful that we chase after the real problems and not get distracted with things like this. I hope my post helped, if you ever have questions about the technical side of what you and the groups you are working with are doing feel free to send me a message. I by no means consider myself an expert but I have been around computers (networks in perticular) a very long time.

[Time for change]

68. Thank you for your input -- I will bring this up to the election integrity people for their take

on it.

I suspect that "but not during transmission if that transmission is in fact encrypted using a trusted root authority" is a big IF.

Anyhow, whether the data is manipulated during transmission or following transmission to the central tabulator, what I am suggesting in the OP would be just as valid as a way of picking up discrepancies between pre-tabulator and post-tabulator counts.

And the other link between the FISA law and election fraud is that they can use it to intercept messages among democratic strategists that would help them plan their fraudulent activities.

As Eliot Cohen writes in the article I link to in the OP:

Without rigorous judicial oversight and monitoring of surveillance procedures, the Bush administration will, in the next months, have a timely window of opportunity to intercept its Democratic opponents’ email messages and phone calls according to self-serving algorithms that screen for names, addresses, and other indicators that are correlated to these individuals. During the Nixon administration technology was not so sophisticated and Nixon’s Burglars had to break into Democratic National Headquarters in order to plant a bug. This can now be done simply by implanting the appropriate algorithm into an NSA computer network.

[Pavulon]

113. You guys miss the point..so far off

they already have the keys to the kingdom. They have had them since oh 1946 or so.

There is no public algorithm including AES or any RSA product that can stand up to a military effort to break it. Joke.

The idea is the NSA gives a fuck enough to do it is the point. Read Bamford for an idea of where they are.

This is tinfoil shit, any retard knows that stealing data in motion is difficult. Stealing it at rest is bread and butter.

So if the system designed to secure the data is securing it at rest then it is "secure" enough.

In reality there is no secure, there is just time and money enough to get something.

Nuclear bomb caused the tsunami news at 10..

[no limit]

118. We are talking about a 4096 bit key. This isn't 1946.

[bdf]

94. I forgot - who does the NSA report to?

As Time for Change pointed out, trusted authorities and SSL (you should be calling it TLS these days) count for nothing if the central tabulator pops up a window which says:

The certificate is not signed by a trusted authority but by Jeb Bush. Accept or Accept?

But results even in Democratic states may be at risk. You say that a man-in-the-middle attack is impossible, but what you really mean is that it is infeasible for organizations or individuals with few resources. Even the NSA doesn't have the resources to quickly crack every private key used on the Internet and would have to be selective about it. They might just have the resources to go after the keys used in exchanges with central tabulators if test runs occur far enough in advance of the actual vote.

Hmmmm, I know such keys are longer than usual, and hence take far longer to crack, but going after a Certification Authority signing key would pay vast dividends in the long run because that would then make some forms of MITM attack very inexpensive indeed. If anyone could do it, the NSA could.

Probably cheaper and easier just to use the wiretaps to get blackmail material on all those involved in supervising the elections, so they can be made to manually fiddle the results.

Once you have that sort of freedom to perform wiretaps on everyone, it's amazing what you can do with it. All evil, of course.

[no limit]

100. But let's assume what you say is true, the NSA has the private key of whichever CA

why would they even need FISA for this? With that private key they can snoop in on everything and modify any data they want with or without FISA.

And I personally doubt even the NSA could crack a CA's private key. There is an open source community of nerds out there with way too much free time on their hands. If such a crack was possible I could bet you money somebody would have already found it. And this is all assuming we are talking about public trusted CAs. My guess would be that such a network would revolve around a VPN with a private PKI with its own internal CA, making it impossible for the NSA to penetrate from the outside.

So my point again is this. FISA is a serious issue and election fraud is a serious issue, but it's quite a leap to link the 2 together. The fact people that dont understand much about network security (since the internet is such an unsafe place) would come to that conclusion is perfectly reasonable, I'm just letting you know it's not possible.

[bdf]

103. It's not that simple

Even if you have obtained the private key (by whatever means) you need FISA to be able to access the messages that are sent using it. You can't snoop or modify unless you can listen in, and that means accessing the physical transmission medium, and that means FISA.

There is past evidence that the NSA, with its gigantic budget and policy of hiring the best, is ahead of the open cryptographic community. Back in the past when DES was still recommended, the "nerds" were suspicious about its S-boxes. They couldn't come up with any theory why the S-boxes had the values they had, and couldn't believe they'd been chosen randomly. The common belief was it was the NSA's way of making DES vulnerable in ways the nerds were unlikely to discover. Then the nerds came up with the idea of "differential cryptography." It turns the S-boxes had just about optimal values to resist differential cryptography. The NSA already knew of it (and, if they did put a weakness in DES it was a different one that remains undiscovered). The NSA has been many years ahead of the nerds and is likely to remain so.

I think it unlikely, but not impossible, that the NSA could go after CA keys. It's barely conceivable if they've come up with an algorithm that has a stupendously large low-order polynomial term. If it takes 57-gazillion-n + n * n (for example) then the vast bulk of the time will be taken up by the linear term - it could be horrendously slower than competing algorithms to run at all, but the difference in time between a 512-bit key and a 4096-bit key could be a small fraction of the set-up time. Incredibly unlikely, but not impossible.

We talked about trusted CAs because you brought them up. VPNs with private PKI may be an improvement, but only if the encryption algorithm is good compared to TLS. PPTP's security is crap, according to Schneier. Schneier damns IPSec with faint praise when he says it's probably more secure than PPTP but that the design makes it impossible for anyone to analyse with any confidence. I distrust everything about IPSec because it has been one long design flaw right from its inception, with flaws that should never have been there if the designers had ever run a VPN in their lives before only being rectified by third-party suggestions. But that's sort of academic, because...

There are many non-cryptographic ways of getting a copy of the private key (whether that of a VPN or a trusted CA). Some of them involve FISA, but on voice material rather than crypto material. For example, tap the calls of the senior execs and techies of a CA, get some juicy blackmail material, get them to give you a copy of the private key. Then use FISA to eavesdrop on the crypto.

Or consider Verisign, an operating arm of Network Solutions. NetSol has overall control of .com and .net (it used to have .org too). It doesn't have complete control because ICANN forced it to allow other registrars who can offer competing services, but only because NetSol runs the fundamental infrastructure they use. NetSol are a pain in the arse, using many tricks to try to lock in customers. Internet techies hate NetSol (the only worse registrar I've encountered is Joker). Most Internet techies find it incredible that ICANN haven't told NetSol to FOAD and given .com and .net to a more ethical company. An aside here: if you use NetSol's "whois" search to see if a domain you want is available and don't buy it immediately, a few hours NetSol themselves snap it up (supposedly to prevent domain speculation) and you come back to find that NetSol are prepared to sell it to you but for a price that is a lot more than you'd have paid if you bought it straight away. However, ICANN is answerable to the US gov't and NetSol knows it. What if the NSA paid NetSol a visit and explained that for reasons of National Security (a bit of hand-waving and mentions of spies) they would consider it a big favour if they could have a copy of the Verisign CA signing key. And in return for that favour they'd lean on ICANN a little to ensure that NetSol kept .com and .net.

You're right that some people don't understand about network security - some of them don't realize that cryptanalysis is only a small part of it and that social engineering, bribery and blackmail have always played a part in cryptography (as has "rubber hose" cryptography - torturing the information out of somebody). You or I as individuals might not be able to eavesdrop and modify an encrypted communication to a central tabulator if strong encryption is used. Governments, particularly the US gov't, have resources and facilities that we do not.

[no limit]

117. If the all powerful NSA has access to private keys then Im sure they don't need FISA to listen in

there are plenty of other much stealthier ways of going about it.

To be perfectly honest with you I have never thought about the social engineering aspect of it. Although I certainly don't agree with what network solutions is doing they aren't as bad as you make it seem. Before a domain is reserved the user gets a confirmation box. They can also call customer service at any time to unreserve that domain. Again, terrible practice but people don't really have to buy a more expensive domain. I have a hard time believing they would cooperate with the NSA over something like this. You say they would do this for business reasons. Could you imagine what would happen to their business if this ever came out? How many people at network solutions would have to be involved in this?

If the vote results travel through a VPN (which I would assume they do) I'm absolutely sure they don't use PPTP. I brought up CAs because even if they were using IPSEC they would need a CA to provide the certificate. I personally feel very safe with IPSEC. Not only are the keys never exchanged over the wire they change constantly. Are you aware of anything that is stronger? I'd love to test it out.

Finally, let's remember that you are talking about the NSA going through this much trouble to modify the vote total going to the central server. If any body goes back to check those original machines they would be completely busted. And an investigation would be launched and somebody at the NSA would be royaly fucked. None of this would make sense. It's much easier to hack the machines themselves, especially after we've seen how easily they could be hacked. And if you hack the machine directly and there is no paper trail you have absolutely nothing to worry about, nobody will ever know. Did this happen in the 2004 election? For the reasons I mentioned I guess we will never know.

Edit: I corrected some typos.

[Pavulon]

114. Dude read up.

they have been doing this for 60 years. NSA can destroy public encryption, even those it did not certify. Read up on the DES cipher and who implemented it. Then AES..

They can tap anyone and if they cant they can have some other agency do it for them.

People here are far behind the reality and totality of the control wielded over the telecom system.

[defendandprotect]

83. "Faith-based" election results . . . ????

[mia]

41. "John McCain as seer -- he predicts the trajectory of the '08 race"

McCain speaks with the confidence of a man who works for an entity that will do ANYTHING to win.



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/john...

The national polls taking the temperature of the presidential race will ebb and flow (much as they have during the last week). The two candidates will be on their game and off. Attention will be lavished on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and the other states deemed critical to the contest's outcome.

It all matters for naught. John McCain peered down the road Friday while speaking to reporters, including The Times' Bob Drogin, at an auto plant in Lordstown, Ohio, and laid out the following scenario:

"I’m the underdog in this race. ... I’m behind. I’ve got to catch up and get ahead. And I expect to do that about 48 hours before the general election."

That view is totally in character for McCain. As The Ticket noted earlier this week, the former fighter pilot "is right where he wants to be, behind his opponent. You can't shoot someone down from in front."

[Ikonoklast]

45. Funny, that.

That view is totally in character for McCain. As The Ticket noted earlier this week, the former fighter pilot "is right where he wants to be, behind his opponent. You can't shoot someone down from in front."

McCain, however, was never a fighter pilot.
Nor did he ever engage an enemy aircraft, at any time in his career as a pilot.

Common misconception as to what he actually did in the war.

He was an A-4 driver.

He bombed things.

The press just keeps repeating the same old meme.

[Imagevision]

48. Obviously it doesn't m-a-t-t-e-r who you vote for - only WHO is doing the counting...

[Nothing Without Hope]

52. It's all connected, all right. I'm betting that a big part of the illegal wiretapping

was done to accumulate a comprehensive collection of blackmail information to suppress dissent and stifle the truth. Some are bought, some are intimidated, some are blackmailed, and, I also believe, some are killed. One that I believe is in the latter category had dared to develop - horrors! - an accurate voting machine that would be hard to corrupt. Athan Gibbs had attracted widespread interest and was on the verge of getting his honest machines into a lot of places when he died on a lonely stretch of highway in a suspicious "accident." Some info on him and his mysterious death:

http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0410159/cg159_USvote.sht...
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031904Fitrakis/031...

Have you wondered why only the most easily corruptible kinds of voting machines, made by GOP-associated companies, have been considered by states for electronic voting? I think Athan Gibbs' story is one answer. How many other "honest" voting machines were derailed along the way? In most cases, it wouldn't take killing; applying business pressures or other dirty tricks would work.

Thank you for this thread, TfC. K & R

[Time for change]

56. Wow, I never heard about that Athan Gibbs story

I'm sure it was just a coincidence that he died when he did.


Thank you for that link, Hope.

[helderheid]

53. rec 76

[emlev]

63. Anybody want to DO SOMETHING about all this?

Projects are currently being organized around the country that will need lots of people.

If your community has a local election integrity group, join it! If not, consider starting one.

There are PLENTY of things people can do to increase the integrity of the upcoming elections, even under the current horrible conditions. You don't have to be able to figure out what to do; you can join with people who already have projects going! More people are needed.

To begin, get on the emails for a few of the election integrity groups that have national scope, so you'll know when calls for action go out.

Try these for starters:

Election Defense Alliance
Velvet Revolution's Election Protection Strike Force
Voters Unite

[defendandprotect]

85. Thank you . . . I've try . . .

[Breeze54]

70. Thank You... that didn't even dawn on me but that makes a lot of sense!

Great post!

Well thought out and all the details that you included are awesome!

A work of art!

& Recommended

[bdf]

73. Don't count your ex-presidents until they've been impeached

I wondered exactly how they were going to rig the next elections now that even Republican states are decertifying Liebold machines (now they know that any passing Liberal could steal the stolen vote from them). This is a plausible mechanism.

However, you didn't really cover a more likely means of abusing the wiretaps except by mentioning in passing how it had been used under Nixon (whom Cheney apparently worships). A way which they almost certainly use given that they started the illegal wiretapping prior to 9-11. Ever wondered why Pelosi is so insistent that "impeachment is off the table"? Or why other Liberals in Congress talk the anti-Bush talk but fail to walk the walk? I'm not saying they're all being blackmailed. I'm not saying most of them are being blackmailed. I'm not even saying a lot of them are being blackmailed. It is probably the case that most of the disappointing behaviour is down to political calculation and/or stupidity. But my guess is that at least one (I have no idea which, I'm just playing the numbers) is under the thumb.

Which raises a number of questions in my mind:

• Bush's incredibly low popularity and public realization that Bush policies are disastrous (for everyone but Dubya's obscenely-rich cronies) and McInsane being more of the McSame (Dubya's stupidity and Cheney's evil in one package) pretty much guarantee that McPain couldn't win a fair election and that the Dems will probably hold at least one chamber in Congress, possibly both (in a fair election).
  
  
• Decertification of Liebold machines means that it will be a fair election (barring abusing the wiretap powers as you suggest to steal it).
  
  
• The powers Cheney has arrogate to himself in the name of Bush as part of the theory of Imperial, sorry "Unitary," presidency are not ones they'd ever want to see in Democratic hands. They wouldn't trust a Dem not to be as dishonest and unscrupulous as themselves (although only Satan could be as bad as those two). The Supremes might put a brake on abuse, and so might Congress (even if both chambers remain in Dem hands the Dems are always more critical of their own Presidents). A Dem President could "abuse" those powers by conducting thorough and honest investigations into 9-11, the lies that took the US into Iraq, Plamegate, etc.
  

These guys really cannot afford to lose the election and therefore they will not play fair. Not that anyone who has observed their immoral, dishonest, illegal and sometimes evil behaviour for the past seven years would expect them to. But the point is they're fighting for their lives. It's not that they'd like to win so that they can continue in their ways, it's that they dare not lose.

And I don't just mean the Neocon wing of the Republican party pulling tricks to let McInsane steal the election. I don't see either Dubya or Dick being the kind of guys who are content to let somebody else pick up their torch and get all the glory that will supposedly come when he sorts out the economy, Iraq and the other Bush disasters. More to the point, why should they let McCain give all the goodies to his obscenely-rich cronies instead of Halliburton getting the bulk of it as part of Cheney's largesse? Why should they risk McVain buying his way out of some future scandal by throwing Dubya and Dick to the wolves with an honest investigation of their maladministration?

Yeah, I know, there's a pesky amendment to the Constitution that would prevent Dubya standing for a third term. But when have Dubya and Dick ever let the law or the Constitution stop them doing what they want? I can see a way they can do it, and kill a whole flock of birds with the same stone. I just hope to hell I'm wrong, because it's your (and my) worst nightmare.

More on that in another post if this one goes down reasonably well. But here's a hint: "President for life Dubya the First" (or, if you think Poopy Bush is evil enough, it will be "President for life Jeb the First").

[Heidi]

75. Hey, welcome to DU!

[Time for change]

82. Yeah, I've worried about that quite a bit myself

And I've also discussed it on DU some. What a nightmare that would be, huh? I guess you're lucky that you don't live here.

Welcome to DU bdf

[bdf]

88. Stay away from Washington DC

Hi Mr Change (or can I call you Time?) and thanks for the beer.

President-for-life Dubya the First is scary, true. But how they might be planning to do it is a lot scarier.

The first point is that these guys are not stupid. Dubya may be stupid (although I'm prepared to believe he acts stupider than he really is because then people like us sit back and wait for him to foul up because we think he won't succeed), but Cheney, Rove and the gang are not. I know it seems that way if you make the assumption that they're trying to do the best for America, in which case they appear to be f***-ups of the first magnitude. But once you realize they're in it to steal power and wealth then it becomes apparent that they're pretty damned clever. A good rule of thumb is that if some piece of "stupidity" gave rise to a result that couldn't have worked out better for them if they'd planned it themselves, then they did - look at all that they gained as a result of their "incompetence" on 9-11...

The second point is that the US military is just about broken. Fourth tours of duty with inadequate breaks. Or take the surge of 21,500. There's a mathematical model of warfare which shows that only a slight numerical advantage results in almost all your guys living and almost all the enemy dying. A 51-50 battle doesn't result in one guy alive on your side and 50 dead/side on both sides, it's a lot more likely to result in 50 alive on your side and 50 dead on the other side. So every general wants to go in mob-handed. If 21,500 is just enough then the general would want 25,000 (people think in round numbers, after all). And if 21,500 is lots more than enough then 21,000 or even 20,000 would be enough (people still think in round numbers). The figure of 21,500 tells us that they wanted more but were scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The third point is that Cheney is still eager to invade Iran and is ignoring anyone who says otherwise. But even if the US military hadn't been broken in Iraq and were fresh, Iran is larger than Iraq, has three times the population and hasn't been through a decade of sanctions limiting its ability to buy arms and keep its population healthy. The only way the US could have taken on Iran first and won is if the Iranians were too stupid to learn the lessons of Vietnam. The Iranians now have Vietnam and Iraq to learn from. On the face of it, it's impossible for the US to invade Iran, yet Cheney still wants to and Cheney is not stupid (evil, yes; stupid, no).

The fourth point is that several months ago plans were put into effect to relocate to 30 miles outside DC all those federal departments and bureaus essential in the event of a major terrorist on DC A prudent move, especially as this maladministration has been kicking every hornets nest around. Yet, um, I don't see the Pentagon going up for sale, so it looks like the top officers are going to be in harm's way. But I'd guess a lot of the lower-ranks currently occupying the Pentagon will be relocated.

The fifth point is that the torture in Iraq is embittering the entire Islamic world (by pure coincidence, Islamic countries sit on top of most of the world's oil) and Chavez can be passed off as a closet Muslim if Cheney tries hard enough. Nobody would place it beyond credence that hotheads might mount another attack on the US.

Put it all together and you can kill an entire flock of birds with one stone. A "nukular" device goes off in DC. By "good fortune" Cheney is in his undisclosed secret location and Dubya is in Crawford (and now you know-why so much attention was drawn to those two being away from DC so often - so it wouldn't be entirely implausible they are both away on the day). An inspection team in NBC suits enter the crater as soon as the temperature drops sufficiently and there, dead center, is a set of Iranian military dog-tags (possibly with a passport, for good measure, just as at 9-11). My God! The Iranians did it! (Another false-flag operation, just like 9-11, but everyone seems to have fallen for that one).

The Iranian military used a nuke, so the US is justified in retaliating in kind (so goes the long-standing doctrine), especially as the US nukes will only be used to take out Iranian nuclear facilities. But where, oh where, would the Iranians hide those facilities? On their military bases, of course (oh, and maybe Teheran, too). No more Iranian military (quite possibly no more Iranian gov't, either). Dick Cheney gets his occupation of Iran so he can steal its oil. America, angered at the loss of the capitol and all its symbolism, urge Bush to go after the terrorists wherever oil (sorry, I meant terrorists) may be found.

In the meantime, Martial Law has to be declared (for the "duration of the emergency" and, since the War on Terra will never end, neither will the emergency). Dubya is president-pro-tem until arrangements can be made to elect a new president (which will coincide with hell freezing over). There is nobody who can, with any legitimacy, put a dent in the Bush/Cheney dictatorship. No Supremes left to consider that there are some turds that even they are not prepared to swallow. No Congress left to challenge the legitimacy of the dictatorship or to impeach. No top-level generals to organize a coup-d'etat. The individual states might be able to organize some sort of coup were it not for the fact that Dubya seems to know all their plans the instant they make them (unless they're smart enough not to use the phone).

End result, the Cheney-Bush agenda rolls on inexorably. It was sad about DC, but it couldn't have worked out any better for them if they'd planned it themselves.

How's that for a nightmare? Made worse (at least for me) because I believe they are smart enough to have already figured it out for themselves and evil enough to do it.

Minor variant scenario... It is Jeb, rather than Dubya, who was and is a member of PNAC. Jeb stood for governor of Florida (a position of real power) at the same time Dubya stood for governor of Texas (a figurehead). It is reasonable to assume that Poopy Bush intended for Jeb to steal the presidency. Unfortunately Jeb didn't win Florida his first attempt so Dubya got the presidency (which probably accounts for that smirk on his face). It's possible that the Neocon leaders would like to see Jeb as president for life. In which case Cheney will be in his hidey-hole but Dubya will be in the White House (or, if Poopy is in a generous mood, Dubya is exciled to obscurity but claimed to be in the WH) when the nuke goes off. Cheney succeeds to the Presidency. Cheney nominates Jeb as Veep. Cheney resigns because of ill-health (might be the first time in his life he says something that isn't a lie). Jeb becomes president-for-life.

In the meantime, over here the EU is determined to impose a "constitution" on populations of many countries who don't want it. A "constitution" that takes away the rights of the people and empowers unelected bureaucrats. And, if things go as intended, they wish to make war criminal Tony Blair the first long-term president of this encroaching fascist dictatorship. So I may be lucky I'm not in the US, but it's only marginal.

[Time for change]

89. Well, I live about 5 miles from the DC border

So, if your scenario comes to pass, you all will just have to carry on without me. Maybe that will make me one of the lucky ones.

I certainly couldn't rule any of that out. There are certainly a great many unexplained and very disturbing developments going on in this country.

[ejbr]

90. Don't post this on DailyKos!!

His moderators will have flip out on you! "Conspiracy theories!", "Prove it!", and other assorted bullshit.

If people refuse to wonder why exit polling is all of the sudden out of whack and that the onus of proving a fair election is on those who count the votes, then we are helpless.

[Joanne98]

91. EXCELLENT!

[jeff30997]

93. Indeed it is.

[Buzz Clik]

96. 110 recommendations? For this?

Ok...

The inmates are running the asylum.

[kimmerspixelated]

98. I think it should have 1000 kicks!!

[Fly by night]

99. It's nice that on DU, even meaningless tripe like this comment kicks a worthy thread.

Thanks, TforC, for another well-written and thought out thread.

Your fellow member of the asylum, FBN

[Buzz Clik]

119. Yeah. And thanks for the disclosure of your membership in the tinfoil brigade.

This thread is a reflection of the mental state of many DUers. I can't decide if it's funny or tragic.

[Fly by night]

121. Keep coming back. You'll figure it out...

... or you won't.

Anyone who still denies the U.S. national experience of stolen elections (circa 1998-2008) facilitated by (but certainly not restricted to) faith-based "vapor trail" touch-screen voting equipment at this late date is either stupid, gullible, corrupt or complicit.

Anything strike a bell with you? Sound familiar?

[Buzz Clik]

123. Let's see... you implied things I didn't say, and then listed some insults for me to choose.

I choose this: anyone who read my post and decided that I think there was no problem with any elections and no problem with touch-screen voting is either a) a mouth-breathing invalid; b) dumb as dirt; c) looking for a fight, but nonetheless stupid.

How's that?

[Fly by night]

124. Calling me a member of the tin-foil hat brigade is the biggest compliment you can bestow.

And if you had spent much time on the election integrity issue during your DU time or -- more importantly -- had actually worked to do something about it where you live, then you'd know that.

Who knows what you believe or how you act. I sure don't. Your posts on this thread are open to a wide range of interpretation. But my sentiments and opinions and actions re: stolen elections (past and future) are hardly a secret here, at least for those who visit the "Election Reform" forum or the "Greatest" page. Where do you hang out, to have over 15,000 posts?

So figure out what you really believe vis a vis this thread (another excellent one by TforC, as I said earlier) and then get back to me. But until then ....

Tin-foil is the new black.

[Jefferson23]

101. Time for change, thanks for this great information!

[Gman]

102. Nothing is too outrageous now

Absolutely anything is possible and something like this is likely.

[cyberpj]

107. In case you didn't notice, a bill for paper ballots was just voted DOWN in Congress.

They don't care.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[flashl]

108. Voting integrity is the name of the game. nt

[Kablooie]

110. Wonderful! I can't wait until we suddenly hear that McCain is president.

After Obama is reported winning most states.

I really think it's possible that this election can be stolen too.

[Psyop Samurai]

111. A couple thoughts that may cut through some resistance...

First, we're talking about a method of identifying instances of fraud via manipulation of the post-tabular count, regardless of where or how that manipulation took place, or what technology is employed in the data transfer.

Second, in troubleshooting, the likelihood of any one thing being the source of a problem does not determine whether or not one performs a check. One verifies all that one can in an effort to isolate the problem, with the understanding that redundancy and "negative" results are part of the process. The sort of crosscheck you propose, between pre- and post-tabulator count, sounds like something that should be routine.

Unfortunately, and as diva77 pointed out, we remain so far behind the curve due to the fundamental misplacement of burden of proof, that I still think a "No Legitimacy" movement is required to adequately address this, among many other issues. Short of that, I'll be curious to know if election experts find this proposal doable. Someone said that election integrity activists had trouble obtaining pre-tabulator results, but I guess that was well after election day.

[Time for change]

116. Yes, you are absolutely right that this needs to be checked out regardless of where or how

the manipulation took place.

I'm in the process now of exploring with the Election Defense Alliance how this might be done. Pre-tabulator counts should not be a problem as long as you have one volunteer at a precinct to collect the data when the polls close. The post-tabulator counts by county are no problem, but we're not sure how difficult it is to get them quickly at the precinct level.