The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Holman]

Security clearance question: is there anyone outside the cabinet whose security clearance equals that of the POTUS and who receives (or can request) the highest-level briefings independently?

If not, what's to stop Trump after January from just asserting whatever bullshit he wants and claiming that it's proven at the highest clearance that nobody else can see?

Short of mass resignations by the intelligence community (which would cripple us), what pushback would be available?

[pr0ner]

Or....

On the one hand, Eichenwald is fighting the good fight. On the other hand, his constant abuse of "2" and "4" makes me want to punch him in the yarbles.

It's 139 characters. I'm no fan of twitter, but if you're going to use it, you're going to see this.

I could write that tweet without using "2" or "4".

It's possible to tweet without relying on netspeak.

[Rip]

Which gets down to the known facts which is all I am saying. The known facts are.

DNC server was hacked. By who is unknown but whoever did passed that info to wikileaks.

Clintons server could have been hacked but security and protocol were so weak no one has any idea. But if it was no one has/had leaked anything from it publicly.

RNC server probably wasn't based on an FBI inspection, but as with any server there is a very small possibility.

Anything beyond that is conjecture or at best educated guessing.

Everything that I've read and heard (except from trump or Conway ) over the past few days, is that both the FBI and CIA know the Russians were involved in hacking the DNC. The CIA, allegedly, believes it to be a concerted effort to influence the election towards the election.
They are certain enough, that otherwise trump apologists, McConneLl, Mcain, and other top tier republicans are relatively abandoning Trump = RNC.


Edit: thus far (NYT, WAPO, CNN, HUFFPO, VARIOUS QUOTES,), the only people denying Russian involvement are Trump's immediate team, and Priebus. And much of what they are saying is being directly refuted by intelligence, and security experts.

So are you suggesting after all those sources that I should beleive Trump over legit journalistic sources, industry experts, Mconnell, and potentially the CIA, and FBI?

The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says a reported CIA assessment that Russian government actors interfered in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win conflicts with the mid-November public testimony from the nation’s intelligence chief, according to a new letter obtained by Fox News.

In a letter Monday to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said, "On November 17, 2016 you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC (Intelligence Community) lacked strong evidence connecting Russian government Cyber-attacks and Wikileaks disclosures."

In response to a question from ranking Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, Clapper had said, “As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don't have as good insight into that.”

The Nunes letter continued, “According to new press reports, this is no longer the CIA’s position…I was dismayed that we did not learn earlier, from you directly about the reported conflicting assessments and the CIA’s reported revision of information previously conveyed to this Committee.”

Nunes is requesting a briefing from the CIA and FBI on the current assessment of alleged Russian involvement related to the U.S. election no later than Dec. 16.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12 ... imony.html

Just read the article twice. It doesn't contradict anuthing I said. It's been reported that the CIA now has strong belief (one presumes with evidence) that Russia was directly involved. Direct physical evidence is elusive or non existent that they have a direct connection between the "party" actors and t he operators, but the broad evidence suggests it. There is no need to open new investigations because both the CIA and FBI have ongoing inveatigations. It's bad enough, at least optically that MConnell and other high renting Republicans are freaked out enough to say thinks that could potentially look bad for the new administration and ultimately for Republicans. AND this is coming from FOX. Who are as likely to say nothing to see here as MSNBC would be to say that this is direct evidence Trump kills puppies.

If you can sat with a straight face that Russia did all this for shits and giggles because they had no clue that Trump would be a boon for them or at least fucking with the election and weakening Hillary wouldn't, your not drinking your own koolaid. You been bitching about the reset for years and how effective rhe Russians are.

I was refuting your claim that.

Everything that I've read and heard (except from trump or Conway ) over the past few days, is that both the FBI and CIA know the Russians were involved in hacking the DNC. The CIA, allegedly, believes it to be a concerted effort to influence the election towards the election.

Clearly the DNI has briefed the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee with info that contradicts what the CIA is apparently leaking now. I guess maybe the CIA is changing opinion and leaking so fast that no one up the chain that the hierarchy can't keep up or the CIA is the loan intel agency with this assessment and perhaps has dissent on it like the FBI did concerning the Clinton stuff.

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... 4204E?il=0

[Combustible Lemur]

Because if there is something that Russia does, it's half assed, espionage.
And again, your article doesn't refute me.
The official says ODNI, while not refuting the CIA, stops short of their conclusion that there is evidence of intent.
Which is impossible to have physical evidence without a confession.
CIA asserts influence, infers intent, ODNI (by way of state officials) does not refute influence,doesn't endorse conclusion of intent.
ODNI makes no comment.

TRUMP says any Russian involvement is ridiculous, hires a pro Russian sec state.

Anyway, now you're just Trolling or so desperate to not concede that your populist hero is a pawn of your historic enemy that you're playing the semantic games that you've whined about for the passed 8 years. Enjoy looking in the Trump Russo mirror. I'm out.

[Max Peck]

Did the Russians “hack” the election? A look at the established facts

No smoking gun, but evidence suggests a Russian source for the cyber attacks on Democrats.

President-elect Donald Trump continues to discount or attempt to discredit reports that the intelligence community has linked the hacking of the DNC, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and related information operations with a Russian effort to prevent Clinton from winning the election—thus assuring Trump's victory. In his latest of a stream of tweets, Trump posted:

The hacking was brought up well before the election. And it was monitored as it was happening—by the intelligence and law enforcement communities and by private information security firms.

"CrowdStrike's Falcon endpoint technology did catch the adversaries in the act," said Dmitri Alperovitch, chief technology officer of Crowdstrike. "When the DNC brought us in to conduct an investigation in May 2016, we deployed this technology on every system within DNC's corporate network and were able to watch everything that the adversaries were doing while we were working on a full remediation plan to remove them from the network."

Much of the evidence from Crowdstrike and other security researchers has been public since June and July. But while the hackers may have been caught in the act digitally, the details by themselves don't offer definitive proof of the identity of those behind the anti-Clinton hacking campaign. Public details currently don't offer clear insight into the specific intent behind these hacks, either.

What is indisputable, however, is the existence of genuine hacking evidence. And this information certainly does provide enough to give the reported intelligence community findings some context.

The evidence

The FBI warned the DNC of a potential ongoing breach of their network in November of 2015. But the first hard evidence of an attack detected by a non-government agency was a spear-phishing campaign being tracked by Dell SecureWorks. That campaign began to target the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and others in the middle of March 2016, and it ran through mid-April.

This campaign was linked to a "threat group" (designated variously as APT28, Sofacy, Strontium, Pawn Storm, and Fancy Bear) that had previously been tied to spear-phishing attacks on military, government, and non-governmental organizations.

"[SecureWorks] researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government," the report from SecureWorks concluded.

The DNC's information technology team first alerted party officials that there was a potential security problem in late March, but the DNC didn't bring in outside help until May. This is when CrowdStrike's incident response team was brought in. CrowdStrike identified two separate ongoing breaches, as detailed in a June 15, 2016 blog post by CrowdStrike CTO Dmitri Alperovitch. The findings were based both on malware samples found and a monitoring of the breach while it was in progress.

One of those attacks, based on the malware and command and control traffic, was attributed to Fancy Bear. The malware deployed by Fancy Bear was a combination of an agent disguised as a Windows driver file (named twain_64.dll) in combination with a network tunneling tool that allowed remote control connections.

The other breach, which may have been the breach hinted at by the FBI, was a long-running intrusion by a group previously identified as APT29, also known as The Dukes or Cozy Bear. Cozy Bear ran SeaDaddy (also known as SeaDuke, a backdoor developed in Python and compiled as a Windows executable) as well as a one-line Windows PowerShell command that exploited Microsoft's Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) system. The exploit allowed attackers to persist in WMI's database and execute based on a schedule. Researchers at Fidelis who were given access to malware samples from the hack confirmed that attribution.

In addition to targeting the DNC and the Clinton campaign's Google Apps accounts, the spear-phishing messages connected to the campaign discovered by SecureWorks also went after a number of personal Gmail accounts. It was later discovered that the campaign had compromised the Gmail accounts of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and a number of other individuals connected to the Clinton campaign and the White House. Many of those e-mails ended up on DC Leaks. The Wikileaks posting of the Podesta e-mails include an e-mail containing the link used to deliver the malware.

After Crowdstrike and the DNC revealed the hacks and attributed them to Russian intelligence-connected groups, some of the files taken from the DNC were posted on a website by someone using the name Guccifer 2.0. While the individual claimed to be Romanian, documents in the initial dump from the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 were found to have been edited using a Russian-language version of Word and by someone using a computer named for Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret police. (The documents are linked in this article by Ars' Dan Goodin.)

In addition to publishing on his or her own WordPress site, Guccifer used the DC Leaks site to provide an early look at new documents to The Smoking Gun using administrative access. The Smoking Gun contacted one of the victims of the breach and confirmed he had been targeted using the same spear-phishing attack used against Podesta.

The DC Leaks site also contains a small number of e-mails from state Republican party operatives. Thus far, no national GOP e-mails have been released. (The New York Times reports that intelligence officials claim the Republican National Committee was also penetrated by attackers, but its e-mails were never published.)

Attribution and motive

There are several factors used to attribute these hacks to someone working on behalf of Russian intelligence. In the case of Fancy Bear, attribution is based on details from a number of assessments by security researchers. These include:

Focus of purpose. The methods and malware families used in these campaigns are specifically built for espionage.

The targets. A list of previous targets of Fancy Bear malware include:

• Individuals in Russia and the former Soviet states who may be of intelligence interest
• Current and former members of NATO states' government and military
• Western defense contractors and suppliers
• Journalists and authors

Fancy Bear malware was also used in the spear-phishing attack on the International Olympic Committee to gain access to the World Anti Doping Agency's systems. This allowed the group to discredit athletes after many Russian athletes were banned from this year's Summer Games.

Long-term investment. The code in malware and tools is regularly and professionally updated and maintained—while maintaining a platform approach. The investment suggests an operation funded to provide long-term data espionage and information warfare capabilities.

Language and location. Artifacts in the code indicate it was written by Russian speakers in the same time zone as Moscow and St. Petersburg, according to a FireEye report.

These don't necessarily point to Fancy Bear being directly operated by Russian intelligence. Other information operations out of Russia (including the "troll factory" operated out of St. Petersburg to spread disinformation and intimidate people) have had tenuous connections to the government.

Scott DePasquale and Michael Daly of the Atlantic Council suggested in an October Politico article that the DNC hack and other information operations surrounding the US presidential campaign may have been the work of "cyber mercenaries"—in essence, outsourcing outfits working as contractors for Russian intelligence. There is also an extremely remote possibility that all of this has been some sort of "false flag" operation by someone else with extremely deep pockets and a political agenda.

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange has insisted that the Russian government is not the source of the Podesta and DNC e-mails. That may well be true, and it can still be true even if the Russian government had a hand in directing or funding the operation. But that is all speculation—the only way that the full scope of Russia's involvement in the hacking campaign and other aspects of the information campaign against Clinton (and for Trump) will be known is if the Obama administration publishes conclusive evidence in a form that can be independently analyzed.

[Zarathud]

"Unable to discharge the powers and duties of [the] office" of President? The U.S. Constitution has a solution for that.

Acting President Pence? That all depends on whether the Trump Cabinet decides to act under the 25th Amendment and is then backed up by a 2/3 vote of Congress.

[Paingod]

"Unable to discharge the powers and duties of [the] office" of President? The U.S. Constitution has a solution for that.

I listened to the whole thing, and it seems to rely heavily on "The Cabinet" deciding the President is unfit for office. It's not a Vice Presidential coup, but a group decision. With Trump stocking up on ass-kissers who have a lot to gain in their roles, I don't think we can expect to see them support this (and likely be replaced by Pence as soon as he assumes office).

[El Guapo]

"Unable to discharge the powers and duties of [the] office" of President? The U.S. Constitution has a solution for that.

Acting President Pence? That all depends on whether the Trump Cabinet magical unicorns decides to act under the 25th Amendment and is then backed up by a 2/3 vote of Congress.

[Defiant]

Newsweek: HOW DONALD TRUMP'S BUSINESS TIES ARE ALREADY JEOPARDIZING U.S. INTERESTS

[Rip]

Wow, all caps. It must be true.

[Max Peck]

Wow, all caps. It must be true.

A sound rebuttal.

[hepcat]

The king of drive by linking is dismissing a drive by link.

[Defiant]

Sorry, it was the newsweek article people talked about above. I haven't had time to read it through.

[malchior]

It's a good read. What a mess. I am waiting to see the reaction to this from the Trumpistas.

[Max Peck]

Sorry, it was the newsweek article people talked about above. I haven't had time to read it through.

I am pleased to report that no numerical homophones were harmed in the writing of this article.

[Defiant]

[Skinypupy]

Wow, all caps. It must be true.

Not only is it quite damning, it's literally the exact same thing Clinton was endlessly raked over the coals for by the GOP establishment throughout the campaign.

But I'm sure you know that already, so please continue to claim it's a "dead dog" or whatever.

[Paingod]

Yesterday the BBC News looked at how the Electoral College might still save the US from Trumpageddon. It's nearly hopeless.

Any hope of swaying enough electors to hand the presidency to Mrs Clinton or a more moderate Republican (Ohio Governor John Kasich, for example) is the longest of long-shots. Although one Republican from Texas, Chris Suprun, has said he won't vote for Mr Trump, another 36 would have to break ranks to drop the Republican below the 270-vote threshold necessary for victory.
...
Beneath all of this sound and fury is the reality that Mr Trump enters the White House with very tenuous claims to a presidential mandate. He trails Mrs Clinton in the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, his Electoral College margin is modest by historical standards, and he has some of the lowest approval ratings of any president-elect.
...
(Democrats pushing for Electoral dissent) could prompt an overreaction from Mr Trump and his team, however, and set them at odds with Republicans in Congress who have called for a closer look into Russia's activities. Anything that knocks the president-elect off his stride and foments dissent in Republican ranks could be viewed by Democrats as a win, and at this point they'll likely take whatever they can get.

[Defiant]

You would think at least a few of them would see the ramifications a Trump administration would have and see picking a normal, competent Republican as an alternative would be a plus.

[malchior]

The electoral college probably merits an analysis at this point. If it's purpose is to enfranchise small states - well it doesn't really do that. The election still hinges on several big states; yes those small states do still get a bigger voice but it is mostly irrelevant. If it is a check on the power of an unsuitable or dangerous candidate. Well it isn't doing that either. If it was originally designed to bribe slave states to join the union...you get the point. It probably needs a re-think. And this is obviously just a quick glance but it does definitely merits that analysis because we've now got a *deeply* divided and somewhat idiotic electorate out there. And losing elections by several million votes and then getting a result that deeply disenfranchises all those voters only makes the eventual crisis all the worse potentially. If this turns out as badly as it looks like it will - then we really need to start looking at it as part of the rebuilding effort. I'd reasonably suspect there might be an appetite for it now.

[LordMortis]

It's a good read. What a mess. I am waiting to see the reaction to this from the Trumpistas.

I think the repeated strategy once Clinton was defeated is to kill the current issue with ignore-ance.

[geezer]

It's a good read. What a mess. I am waiting to see the reaction to this from the Trumpistas.

That should about cover it.

[El Guapo]

The electoral college probably merits an analysis at this point. If it's purpose is to enfranchise small states - well it doesn't really do that. The election still hinges on several big states; yes those small states do still get a bigger voice but it is mostly irrelevant. If it is a check on the power of an unsuitable or dangerous candidate. Well it isn't doing that either. If it was originally designed to bribe slave states to join the union...you get the point. It probably needs a re-think. And this is obviously just a quick glance but it does definitely merits that analysis because we've now got a *deeply* divided and somewhat idiotic electorate out there. And losing elections by several million votes and then getting a result that deeply disenfranchises all those voters only makes the eventual crisis all the worse potentially. If this turns out as badly as it looks like it will - then we really need to start looking at it as part of the rebuilding effort. I'd reasonably suspect there might be an appetite for it now.

The electoral college as it currently functions is intellectually indefensible.

[Chrisoc13]

The electoral college probably merits an analysis at this point. If it's purpose is to enfranchise small states - well it doesn't really do that. The election still hinges on several big states; yes those small states do still get a bigger voice but it is mostly irrelevant. If it is a check on the power of an unsuitable or dangerous candidate. Well it isn't doing that either. If it was originally designed to bribe slave states to join the union...you get the point. It probably needs a re-think. And this is obviously just a quick glance but it does definitely merits that analysis because we've now got a *deeply* divided and somewhat idiotic electorate out there. And losing elections by several million votes and then getting a result that deeply disenfranchises all those voters only makes the eventual crisis all the worse potentially. If this turns out as badly as it looks like it will - then we really need to start looking at it as part of the rebuilding effort. I'd reasonably suspect there might be an appetite for it now.

It may be worth visiting but it's a waste of time to do so since it would require a constitutional amendment which isn't going to happen.

[El Guapo]

The electoral college probably merits an analysis at this point. If it's purpose is to enfranchise small states - well it doesn't really do that. The election still hinges on several big states; yes those small states do still get a bigger voice but it is mostly irrelevant. If it is a check on the power of an unsuitable or dangerous candidate. Well it isn't doing that either. If it was originally designed to bribe slave states to join the union...you get the point. It probably needs a re-think. And this is obviously just a quick glance but it does definitely merits that analysis because we've now got a *deeply* divided and somewhat idiotic electorate out there. And losing elections by several million votes and then getting a result that deeply disenfranchises all those voters only makes the eventual crisis all the worse potentially. If this turns out as badly as it looks like it will - then we really need to start looking at it as part of the rebuilding effort. I'd reasonably suspect there might be an appetite for it now.

It may be worth visiting but it's a waste of time to do so since it would require a constitutional amendment which isn't going to happen.

The more practical Electoral College reform is the reform initiative (discussed before) where various states pass laws saying that they'll award their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote, once enough states sign on to add up to 270+ electoral votes. That would make the national vote determinative without the need for a constitutional amendment.

That's still not easy, exactly, but it's viable in a way that an amendment definitely is not.

[Defiant]

The electoral college probably merits an analysis at this point. If it's purpose is to enfranchise small states - well it doesn't really do that. The election still hinges on several big states; yes those small states do still get a bigger voice but it is mostly irrelevant.

Indeed. You've got handful of states - most of them medium sized - that decide the outcome.

I've also heard the argument that doing the popular vote would mean that the top 9 states would decide the election because 50+% of the population live in them. Except that no politician would win 100% of those large states, because they're very diverse, containing both urban, rural and suburban environments and diverse demographics. And anyone who could pull off getting 51% of the vote in those 9 states (far easier than getting 100% in them) could probably pull off getting the next two largest states as well which would give them a win in the electoral college


The two positive things about the electoral college, that I can think of: It's very hard to do widespread rigging of the vote counts when you have 50 different elections going on than when you have one national election. And doing a recount is much easier when you only have to limit it to individual states (and if you were looking for fraud, you could limit it to those very close states where independent polling suggested that the other candidate had a good chance of winning. You don't need to worry about voter fraud in Alabama or Vermont)

[Combustible Lemur]

I'm unfamiliar with market watch.And, inflammatory title aside, I don't know that his conclusion is accurate, but this is a nice recap of Donald's Russian tendencies.
Top 10 signs that a U.S. president is a Russian agent

[Holman]

The two positive things about the electoral college, that I can think of: It's very hard to do widespread rigging of the vote counts when you have 50 different elections going on than when you have one national election. And doing a recount is much easier when you only have to limit it to individual states (and if you were looking for fraud, you could limit it to those very close states where independent polling suggested that the other candidate had a good chance of winning. You don't need to worry about voter fraud in Alabama or Vermont)

I would imagine that the actual voting would be done the way it is now, i.e. in elections administered at the state level (especially since ballots include state-level candidates in addition to national ones). States already collect and report their vote totals; it's just that those totals are then translated into winner-take-all electoral points on top of the individual-voter count. We would still talk about whether someone "won Ohio" or not because it remains relevant in connection to Ohio's other results.

And of course voting issues (including suppression) are still matters to worry about at the state and even the local levels.

[Smoove_B]

In good news, the Energy Department tells President Elect Trump and his transition team to pound sand:

“The Department of Energy received significant feedback from our workforce throughout the department, including the National Labs, following the release of the transition team’s questions. Some of the questions asked left many in our workforce unsettled,” said Eben Burnham-Snyder, a department spokesman. “Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of DOE (Department of Energy) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people. We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.

“We will be forthcoming with all publically-available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.” Burnham-Snyder’s email had the last sentence in boldface for emphasis.

[El Guapo]

The two positive things about the electoral college, that I can think of: It's very hard to do widespread rigging of the vote counts when you have 50 different elections going on than when you have one national election. And doing a recount is much easier when you only have to limit it to individual states (and if you were looking for fraud, you could limit it to those very close states where independent polling suggested that the other candidate had a good chance of winning. You don't need to worry about voter fraud in Alabama or Vermont)

It makes it vastly more plausible to change the outcome of a presidential election via fraud, though. In a close presidential election, you could change the outcome by switching a small number of votes in one state, especially if you have a large swing state that's close that year. For example, Bush won Florida in 2000 by ~ 500 votes (while losing the national popular vote by ~ 500,000). It would be vastly easier to change ~ 500 votes in one state (could do that in one precinct) without being detected, than it would be to change 500,000 or more votes nationally.

[LordMortis]

China sends its regards.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 68021.html

Weren't we all ready to go off the nut when they were sending ships in to the south sea? I'm sure the Donald's cooler heads will prevail attitude will smoove this over.

Is four years too long to hide under your covers?

[The Meal]

The two positive things about the electoral college, that I can think of: It's very hard to do widespread rigging of the vote counts when you have 50 different elections going on than when you have one national election. And doing a recount is much easier when you only have to limit it to individual states (and if you were looking for fraud, you could limit it to those very close states where independent polling suggested that the other candidate had a good chance of winning. You don't need to worry about voter fraud in Alabama or Vermont)

It makes it vastly more plausible to change the outcome of a presidential election via fraud, though. In a close presidential election, you could change the outcome by switching a small number of votes in one state, especially if you have a large swing state that's close that year. For example, Bush won Florida in 2000 by ~ 500 votes (while losing the national popular vote by ~ 500,000). It would be vastly easier to change ~ 500 votes in one state (could do that in one precinct) without being detected, than it would be to change 500,000 or more votes nationally.

You really think it'd be easier to do that than for a locality to "run up the score" when 90%+ of the locality is already rooting for a particular candidate? I think fraud would be MUCH easier for a national vote.

[malchior]

Other large countries do it the same day - using paper and boxes. It isn't hard. It almost looks like we deliberately make it difficult.

[malchior]

In good news, the Energy Department tells President Elect Trump and his transition team to pound sand:

“The Department of Energy received significant feedback from our workforce throughout the department, including the National Labs, following the release of the transition team’s questions. Some of the questions asked left many in our workforce unsettled,” said Eben Burnham-Snyder, a department spokesman. “Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of DOE (Department of Energy) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people. We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.

“We will be forthcoming with all publically-available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.” Burnham-Snyder’s email had the last sentence in boldface for emphasis.

Symbolic but important. Guess we'll see bitching about civil service protections soon enough (maybe via twitter!)

[Ralph-Wiggum]

In good news, the Energy Department tells President Elect Trump and his transition team to pound sand:

“The Department of Energy received significant feedback from our workforce throughout the department, including the National Labs, following the release of the transition team’s questions. Some of the questions asked left many in our workforce unsettled,” said Eben Burnham-Snyder, a department spokesman. “Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of DOE (Department of Energy) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people. We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.

“We will be forthcoming with all publically-available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.” Burnham-Snyder’s email had the last sentence in boldface for emphasis.

Symbolic but important. Guess we'll see bitching about civil service protections soon enough (maybe via twitter!)

Unfortunately, I agree. I don't think Trump will have any problems finding out those names once he is inaugurated. If they weren't worried enough already, that request has really put climate scientist into action. I read somewhere today (NPR?) that many governmental climate scientist are making extra backups of their data in case Trump et al. try to erase/alter any of it.

edit: and I just now see that article was posted in the Global Warming Thread...

[El Guapo]

The two positive things about the electoral college, that I can think of: It's very hard to do widespread rigging of the vote counts when you have 50 different elections going on than when you have one national election. And doing a recount is much easier when you only have to limit it to individual states (and if you were looking for fraud, you could limit it to those very close states where independent polling suggested that the other candidate had a good chance of winning. You don't need to worry about voter fraud in Alabama or Vermont)

It makes it vastly more plausible to change the outcome of a presidential election via fraud, though. In a close presidential election, you could change the outcome by switching a small number of votes in one state, especially if you have a large swing state that's close that year. For example, Bush won Florida in 2000 by ~ 500 votes (while losing the national popular vote by ~ 500,000). It would be vastly easier to change ~ 500 votes in one state (could do that in one precinct) without being detected, than it would be to change 500,000 or more votes nationally.

You really think it'd be easier to do that than for a locality to "run up the score" when 90%+ of the locality is already rooting for a particular candidate? I think fraud would be MUCH easier for a national vote.

If the zealous local officials in East Bumfuck want to stuff the ballot boxes or whatever, the amount of votes involved are much less likely to be significant in the context of a national pool of votes than in the context of one particular swing state, where a vote difference of 500 or 5,000 votes can swing the state (and the state can in turn swing the national election). It's also much less likely to be detected because it could be confined to a few people in one particular precinct. Also, any local tomfoolery only matters if it is significantly on one side or the other - if the conservative officials in East Bumfuck are stuffing ballots, and the liberal officials in North Whogivesadamn are also stuffing ballots, that probably washes out on a national scale.

It's only likely to not wash out if one side is making an orchestrated, organized effort. And this is where a national popular vote would make fraud harder to pull off. Because to swing the 2000 election, say, that could've been accomplished in one locality. To pull it off if it were a national vote, that would've necessitated changing 500,000+ votes, which would require more people acting across multiple jurisdictions. The bigger the scale of the operation, the more likely that it gets detected (someone rats, someone fucks up).

[The Meal]

In the EC system, swing state jurisdictions tend to be well-watched by observers from both sides.

I don't see a national system having that same protection in all jurisdictions. Nor do I have confidence in each side equally padding their totals in ways that cancel each other out.

[El Guapo]

In the EC system, swing state jurisdictions tend to be well-watched by observers from both sides.

I don't see a national system having that same protection in all jurisdictions. Nor do I have confidence in each side equally padding their totals in ways that cancel each other out.

Which do you think would have been easier to do in this election, without detection:

(1) Change about ~100,000 votes in one direction across three states; OR

(2) Change about ~ 3,000,000 votes in one direction nationally.

I'm inclined to think that #1 is much easier, even factoring in election monitoring efforts.

But to seriously address this question I think would require a comparative analysis of different countries' voter integrity / elections systems - how is a national popular vote handled in other countries, what issues have they had, etc. Right now we're mostly speculating.

[noxiousdog]

In the EC system, swing state jurisdictions tend to be well-watched by observers from both sides.

I don't see a national system having that same protection in all jurisdictions. Nor do I have confidence in each side equally padding their totals in ways that cancel each other out.

Which do you think would have been easier to do in this election, without detection:

(1) Change about ~100,000 votes in one direction across three states; OR

(2) Change about ~ 3,000,000 votes in one direction nationally.

I'm inclined to think that #1 is much easier, even factoring in election monitoring efforts.

But to seriously address this question I think would require a comparative analysis of different countries' voter integrity / elections systems - how is a national popular vote handled in other countries, what issues have they had, etc. Right now we're mostly speculating.

I thought we decided was there's no voter fraud.

[El Guapo]

I thought we decided was there's no voter fraud.

The argument that you are alluding to is that there's no documented instance of widespread voter fraud in the past (nor, to be clear, in this election), at least not of the type that voter fraud laws purport to address (the other half being that said laws are clearly not actually about addressing voter fraud issues).

As for this argument, though, I'm assuming for these purposes that intentional voter fraud / vote manipulation is a *potential* issue in the future. If not, then that reason for the electoral college also largely disappears.