Anonymous, Karl Rove and 2012 Election Fix? - Thom Hartmann/Truth-Out

[Coyotl]

73. PATENTLY FALSE information

This is simply NOT FACTUAL: "SMARTech received the contract to count votes on election night should the servers go down"

Read the contract. Learn about how votes are counted.

People without a rudimentary understanding of technology and how it works, which part can do what, should not write about it, let alone make judgments like the election was stolen by a web server.

Another falsehood. Election results DO swing over the time they are being reported. When a large county that votes 70% for one candidate reports, the results shift. This happened in Florida 2000, remember. Bush was ahead, then Gore counties reported. Why isn't Thom Hartmann crying, "FOUL, GORE fixed the vote" given the reasoning above?

As someone who has taught computer classes at University and tutored computer systems to Ph.D.'s, I agree with this part of the article "In an era of internet lulz and digital false flags, we must demand proof for these sort of claims made by Anonymous." What might that be? How about log files showing the attempted crime of fixing an election? Which Republican/Rovian computer where with what IP address actually was connected to the web and routing its way to an election computer and attempting to access it?

If this really happened, how did Anonymous overlook the opportunity to bust them?

I see that since yesterday Hartmann is falling back to a new position, hedging bets that his exciting story of yesterday will remain bullshit:

"That’s why it’s vitally important for Anonymous to release any information or evidence it has about this plot to not just Julian Assange, but to law enforcement authorities as well. Otherwise, the alleged democracy-saving actions of the hacktivist group will instead be regarded as useless internet antics, relegated to the dustbins of history."

This will be the dust under the dustbins of history. The stuff in the dustbins is lame crap that will nonetheless be remembered. This won't be, except maybe as an example of a fraud about a non-existent fraud that consisting of claiming it was true because the non-existent fraud did not happen.