The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Fireball]

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.

The scale of the fraudulent vote you would need to swing a national election would be staggering. You could probably fake a couple thousand votes in a modern American election if you had either very asleep-at-the-wheel electoral officers or actual corruption amongst those charged to count votes locally, provided there was no audit. It would be basically impossible to fake hundreds of thousands or millions of votes nationwide.

[Fireball]

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.

Both would be basically impossible. Without massive complicity by election officials, as well as election monitors by both parties, large scale voter fraud like is vanishingly unachievable.

[Defiant]

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

The argument is a hypothetical about whether the EC or a national vote would be more vulnerable to hacking the vote, as it were.

There's no evidence to suggest that Russia hacked the voting machines, since the recount was done with no evidence to suggest that they were hacked. ( Of course, under RIP logic, there is no way of knowing for sure, so they were very likely hacked. )

[Defiant]

Both would be basically impossible. Without massive complicity by election officials, as well as election monitors by both parties, large scale voter fraud like is vanishingly unachievable.

I don't think it would be impossible. Very unlikely, but the expert in the field put up the hypothetical of how it could be achieved (especially if the system isn't audited after the election, since it really relies on that to ensure the validity). The idea of hacking into an the computer where the ballot is created, place a piece of malware on it, it gets copied onto a usb drive that gets placed onto the electronic voting machines. I don't think it would be easy, but I wouldn't think it impossible for it to happen, especially if it was the work of a country, with the resources to implement it.

If we could get Stuxnet past Iranian security and into their nuclear program, I think it would be possible to see something similar happen with regards to voting machines.

[Chaz]

I'm pretty ignorant, but isn't the real problem with Russia influencing the election not that they potentially directly tampered with the votes, and more that they influenced everything leading up to the vote? It seems like that's very likely what they did lots of, and that's both way harder to stop, and way easier to do. Yes, we're pretty sure that they didn't hack the voting machines, but they very likely stole and leaked data damaging to the DNC to wikileaks, and definitely aided in the dissemination of fake news that was biased against Clinton.

The brilliant part is that those kinds of things likely had a large effect that is really difficult to measure or prove.

[The Meal]

The scale of the fraudulent vote you would need to swing a national election would be staggering. You could probably fake a couple thousand votes in a modern American election if you had either very asleep-at-the-wheel electoral officers or actual corruption amongst those charged to count votes locally, provided there was no audit. It would be basically impossible to fake hundreds of thousands or millions of votes nationwide.

I agree with all these statements. I also think its more likely to occur (not sure about Guapo's question about which system would make it more observable) in a national election. Whether it's meaningfully more likely is purely guesswork.

I also like that the EC system seemingly prevents a candidate with local-only policies from running up the score. This is a purely hypothetical concern in our current two-party dominated system (as no extreme local-only candidate is going to get through the primary system for one of the major parties).

I could be swayed by the idea of a state-by-state vote with weighting such that each state's worth is equivalent to their population (a 438 EC system, if you catch my drift). I don't love the idea of Electoral College electors (as I think if we see a crazy number of faithless Trump electors this time around, we're going to be staring at utter chaos). But I've laid out the issues I have with a pure national popularity vote.

[Defiant]

I'm pretty ignorant, but isn't the real problem with Russia influencing the election not that they potentially directly tampered with the votes, and more that they influenced everything leading up to the vote? It seems like that's very likely what they did lots of, and that's both way harder to stop, and way easier to do. Yes, we're pretty sure that they didn't hack the voting machines, but they very likely stole and leaked data damaging to the DNC to wikileaks, and definitely aided in the dissemination of fake news that was biased against Clinton.

The brilliant part is that those kinds of things likely had a large effect that is really difficult to measure or prove.

Yep. They hacked people instead of machines.

[Holman]

I'm pretty ignorant, but isn't the real problem with Russia influencing the election not that they potentially directly tampered with the votes, and more that they influenced everything leading up to the vote? It seems like that's very likely what they did lots of, and that's both way harder to stop, and way easier to do. Yes, we're pretty sure that they didn't hack the voting machines, but they very likely stole and leaked data damaging to the DNC to wikileaks, and definitely aided in the dissemination of fake news that was biased against Clinton.

The brilliant part is that those kinds of things likely had a large effect that is really difficult to measure or prove.

And since it's likely that they hacked the RNC too, the second half of this drama is still to come. Russia probably has information that would be devastating to the Trump administration and perhaps many other Republicans.

Various GOP operatives have already said awful things about voter suppression in public view; we have to assume that there were much worse things being discussed and said (and possibly even accomplished) in private. Who knows how many high-level Republicans the Russians can influence with this?

[Smoove_B]

Yep. They hacked people instead of machines.

Absolutely. Look at the Comey letter. Nate Silver offered his opinion yesterday. Why risk or plan some type of technological-based ruse when you can simply release information that likely has a greater impact?

[Rip]

Likely the hacked the RNC? Been reading fake news again?

No one has show a shred of evidence to support that.

[Skinypupy]

Well this is horrifying:

The Trump transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, asking officials there to identify which department employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation’s carbon output.

The questionnaire requests a list of those individuals who have taken part in international climate talks over the past five years and “which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.”

One question zeroed in on the issue of the “social cost of carbon,” a way of calculating the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. The transition team asked for a list of department employees or contractors who attended interagency meetings, the dates of the meetings, and emails and other materials associated with them.

The questionnaire also appeared to take aim at the national laboratories, which operate with a high degree of independence but which are part of the Energy Department. The questionnaire asked for a list of the top 20 salaried employees of the labs, the labs’ peer-reviewed publications over the past three years, a list of their professional society memberships, affiliations, and the websites they maintain or contribute to “during work hours.”

Dept of Energy response to to Trump: EABOD

The Department of Energy said Tuesday it will reject the request by President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team to name staffers who worked on climate change programs.

Energy spokesman Eben Burnhan-Snyder said the agency received “significant feedback” from workers regarding a questionnaire from the transition team that leaked last week.

“Some of the questions asked left many in our workforce unsettled,” Snyder said.

Good for them.

[Holman]

Likely the hacked the RNC? Been reading fake news again?

No one has show a shred of evidence to support that.

Are serious claims by the CIA "fake news" in Trumpistan?

CIA says RNC was hacked. FBI says they can't confirm it, but they haven't reviewed the CIA's evidence and rejected it. Senators and others who've had the briefings are taking it all very seriously.

But, sure, Trump and Priebus and Putin say there's nothing to see here, so...

[Rip]

Likely the hacked the RNC? Been reading fake news again?

No one has show a shred of evidence to support that.

Are serious claims by the CIA "fake news" in Trumpistan?

CIA says RNC was hacked. FBI says they can't confirm it, but they haven't reviewed the CIA's evidence and rejected it. Senators and others who've had the briefings are taking it all very seriously.

But, sure, Trump and Priebus and Putin say there's nothing to see here, so...

That is total crap. The FBI and other intel agencies disagree with the Russian intention aspect. They have no evidence that the RNC was hacked, only that there was a poor attempt to hack it.

Russian hackers attacked email accounts linked to the Republican National Committee (RNC), according to a report late Sunday by ABC News.

Neither federal authorities nor RNC officials reportedly were concerned, however, because the email systems in question were outdated.

RNC spokesman Sean Spicer told the network that one of the emails belonged to an employee who departed from the RNC several years ago. A cybersecurity firm hired by the RNC to investigate the issue found that the employee’s email account was still on his personal computer, but the investigation found that the device had not been linked to an RNC server in several years.

The news that Russians attempted to hack the RNC comes several months after the Obama administration formally accused Russia of trying to meddle in the United States election. Following a hack of Democratic National Committee emails, the administration made the announcement in October.

“The DNC [hack] was the crown jewels. The RNC not as much,” an official briefed on the information, who is affiliated with Republicans, told ABC.

According to another official who spoke to ABC, federal authorities were not as worried about the hack on the RNC because “the extent of the compromises were completely different.”

Reince Priebus, the chairman of the RNC and the incoming White House chief of staff for President-elect Donald Trump, insisted Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that the organization was not hacked.

“I know of no instance that you’re describing involving the RNC or the RNC’s data,” he told host George Stephanopoulos.

“We know where our data is stored. We do,” he added.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/30 ... d-with-rnc

A couple e-mail clients having malware != the RNC being hacked.

[Holman]

Your quoted 260-word text is literally the whole story published at The Hill. It says nothing about the CIA's investigation, not even to reject it. It makes no claim to being a definitive account.

Presumably there's some reason the CIA is treating this as a serious threat, and we don't know it all yet. Why are you so quick to dismiss their concerns?

[Rip]

Your quoted 260-word text is literally the whole story published at The Hill. It says nothing about the CIA's investigation, not even to reject it. It makes no claim to being a definitive account.

Presumably there's some reason the CIA is treating this as a serious threat, and we don't know it all yet. Why are you so quick to dismiss their concerns?

Why are you so sure of what the CIA thinks? Did they issue a report to you? Because all I have seen is second hand anonymous source statements. I think you will find that the CIA doesn't have any actual facts proving the RNC was hacked.

I guess we will see when they actually they actually speak via something other than leaks. Let's not forget that leaks about what the FBI was doing or was going to do vis~a~vi the Clinton investigation.

When they present actual evidence of such to the congressional intel communities I will consider it.

[Max Peck]

Let's not forget that leaks about what the FBI was doing or was going to do vis~a~vi the Clinton investigation.

So, are you saying that there was no substance to the allegations against Clinton, or that there totally is substance to the CIA leaks/rumors?

[Isgrimnur]

There's a 99% chance that Hillary will be indicted aaaany minute now.

[Pyperkub]

Likely the hacked the RNC? Been reading fake news again?

No one has show a shred of evidence to support that.

here you go

[Rip]

Let's not forget that leaks about what the FBI was doing or was going to do vis~a~vi the Clinton investigation.

So, are you saying that there was no substance to the allegations against Clinton, or that there totally is substance to the CIA leaks/rumors?

I'm saying they are both still being investigated and we should let these agencies get to a point they have something of substance to report. There is probably some substance to both but less than what has been speculated in both cases.

[Rip]

Likely the hacked the RNC? Been reading fake news again?

No one has show a shred of evidence to support that.

here you go

A leak by "senior administration officials" is fake until they go on the record and specify what they mean. Do they mean some RNC officials got their G-mail accounts hacked or something. That I can believe, but the party e-mail server was looked at and nothing was found. If they have something that says otherwise there is no reason to be so vague and secretive about it.

[Zarathud]

I eagerly await Rip to accept the evidence instead of the cover-up.

[Rip]

I eagerly await Rip to accept the evidence instead of the cover-up.

Why wouldn't I? It isn't some major catastrophe if the RNC had been hacked as well. A simple matter of having faith in server penetration testing when it is performed by professionals. Since the CIA doesn't do that I suspect any belief they have otherwise is based on humint which is remarkably undependable.

[Holman]

Likely the hacked the RNC? Been reading fake news again?

No one has show a shred of evidence to support that.

here you go

A leak by "senior administration officials" is fake until they go on the record and specify what they mean. Do they mean some RNC officials got their G-mail accounts hacked or something. That I can believe, but the party e-mail server was looked at and nothing was found. If they have something that says otherwise there is no reason to be so vague and secretive about it.

What? No. "Fake news" is when someone publishes rumor as proven fact or makes up whole stories because they'll get clicks and outrage.

When senior officials leak information, that *is* the news. It's part of a developing story that journalists are covering according to legitimate journalistic standards. If those leaks turn out to be mistaken or even intentionally misleading, that's still not "fake news." News is ongoing assessment of facts. Claiming that Obama plans to put Christians in FEMA camps is not.

You can't see the difference?

[tgb]

Schudenfreude is fun.

That's what loyalty to RBOTUS will get you.

[Skinypupy]

I can't help but wonder what the outcome would have been if Rip (and others like him) applied the same level of energy, skepticism, and criticism to the "Crooked Hillary" claims as they have in examining the potential of Russian influence in this election.

[Zarathud]

There can only be massive conspiracies and cover ups AGAINST the Republicans. Everyone knows after this election that the white man is so oppressed in America.

[Remus West]

I can't help but wonder what the outcome would have been if Rip (and others like him) applied the same level of energy, skepticism, and criticism to the "Crooked Hillary" claims as they have in examining the potential of Russian influence in this election.

You mean like ignoring anything that does not meet their view of the situation and reinforce the opinion they formed well before any facts were revealed? It would have been exactly as it was because they did.

[malchior]

Here is a decent piece on the challenge that the CIA faces convincing the public. To sum up some of it - they might have far more evidence - that they can't reveal. But the heart of the matter is that partisan political 'hacking' of our institutions have weakened fundamental trust in those institutions. And this has made their jobs nearly impossible. It also doesn't help when one of the agencies partially undermining their assessment is the same one that acted as a partisan during the election.

My add-on is it certainly doesn't help when the incoming so-called leader of the nation publicly attacks them. We are marching towards a future with less protection from foes foreign and domestic at a time when geopolitical stresses are racheting higher. Not Cuban missile crisis levels obviously but he is antagonizing China, has a cabinet agitating to do *something* about Iran, and attempting some foolhardy rapprochement with Russia (who are teamed up with Iran in Syria - to make it even less coherent!). This is doubleplusungood.

[Skinypupy]

I can't help but wonder what the outcome would have been if Rip (and others like him) applied the same level of energy, skepticism, and criticism to the "Crooked Hillary" claims as they have in examining the potential of Russian influence in this election.

You mean like ignoring anything that does not meet their view of the situation and reinforce the opinion they formed well before any facts were revealed? It would have been exactly as it was because they did.

It's just funny/sad watching them present every innuendo and rumor about the e-mail server or the Clinton Foundation as immutable truth that proved she was crooked...then turn around and reject all claims and/or summarily dismiss similar "sources said" reporting when it's about Russian involvement.

[malchior]

Well it is almost like they have almost no integrity!

[malchior]

Here is a fun conflict of interest with the DC hotel.

[Zarathud]

The media dropped the ball by failing to uncover this DC hotel story -- it's a standard government clause on a building owned and managed by the US government but just redeveloped by Trump with his brand.

[malchior]

WTF? This has to be flawed methodology. Has to be.

[Paingod]

The media dropped the ball...

I find it hard to fault the media for missing anything on Trump. As a target, he's got so many fingers in so many pies that you'd need a virtual army of people with access to every aspect of his life working in concert together to accomplish any kind of meaningful review of his activities and any loopholes that can be used against him. I read somewhere that he's involved - either as a board member or owner - of something on the order of 500+ companies, and who knows how many subsidiaries and properties they have between them.

[Sepiche]

So it turns out... according to a US Army investigation, Gen. Flynn unknowingly gave classified intelligence to Afghan officers:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... iser/2246/

The Commander, United States Central Command (CENTCOM), initiated an Army Regulation
(AR) 15-6 investigation upon receipt of a complaint from a Navy Intelligence Specialist that
MG Flynn inappropriately shared United States classified information with various foreign
military officers and/or officials in Afghanistan. The inquiry was conducted by a properly
appointed official and was thorough. The AR 15-6 found that some inappropriate sharing of
United States classified information with various foreign military officers and/or officials
occurred as a result of MG Flynn guidance and actions. The AR 15-6 further found that the
sharing of classified information was not done knowingly and that there was no actual or
potential damage to national security as a result of MG Flynn actions. The AR 15-6
investigation is classified SECRET.

I await the years of investigations and calls for him to be "locked up" by Republicans which are no doubt soon to follow, right?

[El Guapo]

Flynn does not require confirmation for his position, right?

[Sepiche]

Flynn does not require confirmation for his position, right?

Correct.

[malchior]

Yeah - he wouldn't be in the line of succession.

[El Guapo]

Flynn does not require confirmation for his position, right?

Correct.

That's unfortunate, as Flynn seems to be the king of the crazy people. Though I'm sure Trump would be listening to crazy people regardless.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I have no idea if this is credible (I've never heard of TheWrap before), but the sad thing is that it wouldn't surprise me if it were true:

President-elect Donald Trump’s team is struggling so hard to book A-list performers for his inaugural festivities that it offered ambassadorships to at least two talent bookers if they could deliver marquee names, the bookers told TheWrap.

The bookers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they were approached by members of Trump’s Presidential Inaugural Committee in recent weeks with offers of cash or even plush diplomatic posts in exchange for locking in singers.

Trump’s team has struggled to find talent outside of the low-wattage stars who endorsed him during the campaign. A meeting between Trump and Kanye West spurred speculation Tuesday that the the troubled rapper might perform. On Wednesday, news broke that Trump’s team had managed to enlist 16-year-old former “America’s Got Talent” star Jackie Evancho.

In a statement to TheWrap, Trump’s team denied offering any ambassadorships. “There is no truth to this insinuation,” said committee spokesman Boris Epshteyn. “First-class entertainers are eager to participate in the inaugural events. The inauguration as a whole will be an exciting and uniting celebration of freedom and democracy. We will be releasing further details at the appropriate time.”