Wednesday, 23 November 2016, WASHINGTON, D.C. - A growing chorus of nonpartisan academics as well as activists reportedly have voiced strong concerns about alleged statistical irregularities in voting results in key battleground states Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where a mere shift in 55,000 votes total would give the 2016 U.S. Presidential victory to Hillary Clinton making her the 45th President of the United States. Another group of analysts led by the Voting Rights Institute's founder John Bonifaz and Professor Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's center for computer security and society also are calling for a review of the vote.
Meanwhile The Washington Post dismissively reports that misinformation posted by others on social media urges recipients to deluge the Department of Justice (DOJ) with requests for an investigation of voting irregularities in the alleged Trump victory apparently based on what that publication emphasizes is a misconception that DOJ would initiate any investigation based on the volume of public outcry. The Post refers to a DOJ spokesman who unsurprisingly states (untruthfully) that DOJ operates strictly on the facts, evidence and federal statutes (although anyone paying attention especially now knows that DOJ acts based on the politics of those in charge and routinely among other things ignores laws and tailors tortured bogus legal opinions as ordered) although the Post further does note that DOJ would still initiate an investigation of this election based on evidence of election or voter fraud, intimidation, discriminatory election practices or other violations of federal law.
Reportedly presumably based on earlier United States unprecedented government statements including by Vice-President Joe Biden of unspecified coming U.S. retaliation apparently related to extremely rare pre-election public predictions by two U.S. intelligence agencies, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), although curiously not joined by Republican operative James Comey's rogue Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), based on their "confidence" that the Russian government directed hacking largely perpetrated specifically at the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign in particular as well as raising the possible but unlikely specter of direct election interference based on "scanning and probing" of some states' "election-related systems" traced mostly to servers of a Russian company (all of which "President-elect" Trump currently -- unless he changed his mind -- claims entirely to dismiss despite receiving most highly classified national security briefing on this matter) the press yesterday requested assurance that the Director of National Intelligence was confident that the actual election indeed had been secure.
The DNI spokesman somewhat curiously declined to provide such an assurance on the security of the election on the seemingly specious grounds that "colleagues at the DHS" (which actually is one of the 16 national intelligence and security agencies under the DNI) were "best positioned to address this." The DHS however apparently was not aware that it was so positioned because when then dutifully approached the spokesman for the "colleague" DHS which was the only other intelligence agency to have given public notice of the Russian cyber election meddling somewhat oddly gave the press and therefore the public no response at all to a request for comment. The press was not then referred to any other agency at all presumably ending the U.S. intelligence agency wild goose chase at least for the day. Nor apparently did any unnamed source surface.
Readers interested in more information regarding the above can go to the links below. The first link below is to an article from The Guardian which details growing concerns about the presidential election results from various quarters and actions being planned and/or taken by those concerned. The second link below is to a Washington Post article which on its face confirms that it is indeed the mere 55,000 votes described above on which the Trump "victory" depends which votes if shifted to Hillary Clinton would make her the President-elect. The Washington Post notably haughty article however is more focused on and preoccupied with sleuthing the source(s) of the social media pathways claimed to be misleading with the article effectively dissuading the general public which is unlikely to have hard evidence from raising any unsubstantiated outcry to DOJ. In furtherance of this objective it paternally even notes that it is not providing the People for unstated reasons with certain of the alleged DOJ phone number(s) to call circulating in social media.
The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment observes as to the latter position that is not necessarily in concert with the masses nor the core values of the United States Constitution encompassing in particular unequivocally the unfettered right of the People to petition the State for a redress of grievances without regard to what branch or department the People may choose to petition and on what grounds. Furthermore as a practical matter should such petitioning reach an overwhelming crescendo which also may be augmented by the related fundamental core constitutional right of the People peaceably to assemble in as large a number as they may choose to participate in person in the petitioning of the State when that assembly has amassed to the point of occupying a large area of the People's capital we would suggest that it shall once again become apparent to any organ of the State that the will of a sea of the People outside its windows or walls as the case may be shall not and will not be ignored even if strictly speaking the People have not got exactly the "right department" nor recently reviewed the procedures in the most recently amended pertinent parts of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Given the grave domestic damage and needless international bloodshed and unconstitutional warfare and other horrific disasters of the illegitimate administration which flowed from the 2000 non-election in the Bush/Cheney coup d'etat made a fait accompli by a partisan Supreme Court the majority of whose members have shown themselves to be either mentally incompetent, deranged, brain dead, suffering from Alzheimer's, demented, living on another planet, senile and/or all of the preceding, one might expect that should something significant come of the matter set forth in this post that the People will not again tolerate such a blatantly partisan inappropriate illegitimate unconstitutional interference with the People's fundamental right to choose the President of the United States.
UPDATES: A more recent BBC article added as a third link below for interested readers further details that groups mentioned above including data analysts joined by some lawyers find the 55,000 Trump battleground state votes suspect because Trump inexplicably performed better and Clinton worse in those locations with electronic voting machines potentially vulnerable to hacking in contrast to those with paper ballots and optical scanners definitely not subject to hacking. As vote counting still continues Clinton's popular vote lead over Trump has been steadily increasing now surpassing two million votes. For interested readers further fourth and fifth links have been added below to two articles on this matter most recently now appearing in The New York Times the latter originating from the Associated Press.
UPDATES: The Times more recently reports that faced with the growing likelihood that all three battleground state votes will be audited and/or recounted that (unidentified without explanation) "officials" in the "administration" defend the "integrity" of the vote. The Times curiously provided no information at all as to who or where those "officials" might be or as to why they are not identified. The Times further summarily refers to the Department of Homeland Security and "other intelligence officials" pre-election predictions discounting the possibility of Russian election hacking and essentially ignores that some other irregularity might turn up in recounts and/or audits even if the earlier predictions by the DHS and DNI prove correct. Interested readers can go to this more recent article added as a sixth link below. The Times the following day did then release a "U.S. Statement on Reliability of Election Results" it had been given by a "senior administration official" on the unexplained condition of anonymity which apparently was the source for the above-referenced article but not mentioned nor provided to the public until added by a link the following day by the Times. Interested readers can read the statement at the added seventh link below.
The Times further also reported that unsurprisingly the Hillary Clinton campaign had joined the Jill Stein initiated vote recount in Wisconsin to the extent of paying lawyers to participate in oversight and would do the same if Ms. Stein's Green Party further initiated recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, which has not yet completed its initial vote count. The Green Party's success in collecting what is expected to be seven million dollars in donations in a mere few days to fund recounts assuredly was made possible not mostly by Green Party supporters but by those holding out hope for a Clinton victory. Readers interested in more information on the Clinton campaign's "change of heart" to participate can go to the added eighth link below.
The recount saga continues as more recently Trump supporters have joined the fray by mounting various challenges seeking now to stop the three state vote recounts in their tracks seemingly on the basis of whatever arguments they find most expedient in each of the different state venues and depending on what available procedures may be feasible in each state. Their motivation is unclear and their arguments as to the futility of recounts seemingly at odds with Mr. Trump's oft-repeated assertions of a "rigged election" and his more recent tweet(s) since apparently winning the election by electoral votes nevertheless claiming (without evidence) that he actually won the popular vote as well if one deducts the "millions" of fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton who according to those who have been actually counting the votes now leads Trump by more than 2.5 million votes.
So far as to the challenges the Trump supporters have mounted seeking to halt the three state vote recounts the different state election officials involved have all taken positions strictly without exception along partisan lines. Readers interested in more information can go to the added ninth link below. On Saturday, 3 December 2016, Jill Stein dropped a pending bid for a Pennsylvania statewide vote recount after Pennsylvania courts imposed a $1 million bond requirement to start a statewide recount which she criticized including on the grounds that petitioners were "citizens of ordinary means."
Dr. Stein nevertheless as of Saturday evening had collected $6.9 million in donations to fund recount bids with further funds still being sought. A campaign for a much more limited recount of Pennsylvania votes in Philadelphia and other targeted areas rather than statewide is going forward. Meanwhile calling the bond requirement evidence of "antiquated" state law Jill Stein seemed to leave open the possibility of further plans for challenging the Pennsylvania vote stating that " [w]e will pursue every available remedy to ensure Pennsylvanians can trust what happened in this election." She also promised a forthcoming "major announcement" on this coming Monday morniing. Readers interested in more information can go to the tenth link below.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/22/the-department-of-justice-is-not-going-to-conduct-a-vote-audit-based-on-your-phoned-in-outrage/?utm_term=.0e7b3bfac178
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38087150
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton-trump.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/23/us/politics/ap-us-election-recount-push-.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/politics/hacking-russia-election-fears-barack-obama-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/us-statement-on-reliability-of-election-results.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/clinton-camp-will-join-push-for-wisconsin-ballot-recount.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/trump-recounts-wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/jill-stein-pennsylvania-recount.html
Copyright 2016 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved
Meanwhile The Washington Post dismissively reports that misinformation posted by others on social media urges recipients to deluge the Department of Justice (DOJ) with requests for an investigation of voting irregularities in the alleged Trump victory apparently based on what that publication emphasizes is a misconception that DOJ would initiate any investigation based on the volume of public outcry. The Post refers to a DOJ spokesman who unsurprisingly states (untruthfully) that DOJ operates strictly on the facts, evidence and federal statutes (although anyone paying attention especially now knows that DOJ acts based on the politics of those in charge and routinely among other things ignores laws and tailors tortured bogus legal opinions as ordered) although the Post further does note that DOJ would still initiate an investigation of this election based on evidence of election or voter fraud, intimidation, discriminatory election practices or other violations of federal law.
Reportedly presumably based on earlier United States unprecedented government statements including by Vice-President Joe Biden of unspecified coming U.S. retaliation apparently related to extremely rare pre-election public predictions by two U.S. intelligence agencies, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), although curiously not joined by Republican operative James Comey's rogue Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), based on their "confidence" that the Russian government directed hacking largely perpetrated specifically at the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign in particular as well as raising the possible but unlikely specter of direct election interference based on "scanning and probing" of some states' "election-related systems" traced mostly to servers of a Russian company (all of which "President-elect" Trump currently -- unless he changed his mind -- claims entirely to dismiss despite receiving most highly classified national security briefing on this matter) the press yesterday requested assurance that the Director of National Intelligence was confident that the actual election indeed had been secure.
The DNI spokesman somewhat curiously declined to provide such an assurance on the security of the election on the seemingly specious grounds that "colleagues at the DHS" (which actually is one of the 16 national intelligence and security agencies under the DNI) were "best positioned to address this." The DHS however apparently was not aware that it was so positioned because when then dutifully approached the spokesman for the "colleague" DHS which was the only other intelligence agency to have given public notice of the Russian cyber election meddling somewhat oddly gave the press and therefore the public no response at all to a request for comment. The press was not then referred to any other agency at all presumably ending the U.S. intelligence agency wild goose chase at least for the day. Nor apparently did any unnamed source surface.
Readers interested in more information regarding the above can go to the links below. The first link below is to an article from The Guardian which details growing concerns about the presidential election results from various quarters and actions being planned and/or taken by those concerned. The second link below is to a Washington Post article which on its face confirms that it is indeed the mere 55,000 votes described above on which the Trump "victory" depends which votes if shifted to Hillary Clinton would make her the President-elect. The Washington Post notably haughty article however is more focused on and preoccupied with sleuthing the source(s) of the social media pathways claimed to be misleading with the article effectively dissuading the general public which is unlikely to have hard evidence from raising any unsubstantiated outcry to DOJ. In furtherance of this objective it paternally even notes that it is not providing the People for unstated reasons with certain of the alleged DOJ phone number(s) to call circulating in social media.
The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment observes as to the latter position that is not necessarily in concert with the masses nor the core values of the United States Constitution encompassing in particular unequivocally the unfettered right of the People to petition the State for a redress of grievances without regard to what branch or department the People may choose to petition and on what grounds. Furthermore as a practical matter should such petitioning reach an overwhelming crescendo which also may be augmented by the related fundamental core constitutional right of the People peaceably to assemble in as large a number as they may choose to participate in person in the petitioning of the State when that assembly has amassed to the point of occupying a large area of the People's capital we would suggest that it shall once again become apparent to any organ of the State that the will of a sea of the People outside its windows or walls as the case may be shall not and will not be ignored even if strictly speaking the People have not got exactly the "right department" nor recently reviewed the procedures in the most recently amended pertinent parts of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Given the grave domestic damage and needless international bloodshed and unconstitutional warfare and other horrific disasters of the illegitimate administration which flowed from the 2000 non-election in the Bush/Cheney coup d'etat made a fait accompli by a partisan Supreme Court the majority of whose members have shown themselves to be either mentally incompetent, deranged, brain dead, suffering from Alzheimer's, demented, living on another planet, senile and/or all of the preceding, one might expect that should something significant come of the matter set forth in this post that the People will not again tolerate such a blatantly partisan inappropriate illegitimate unconstitutional interference with the People's fundamental right to choose the President of the United States.
UPDATES: A more recent BBC article added as a third link below for interested readers further details that groups mentioned above including data analysts joined by some lawyers find the 55,000 Trump battleground state votes suspect because Trump inexplicably performed better and Clinton worse in those locations with electronic voting machines potentially vulnerable to hacking in contrast to those with paper ballots and optical scanners definitely not subject to hacking. As vote counting still continues Clinton's popular vote lead over Trump has been steadily increasing now surpassing two million votes. For interested readers further fourth and fifth links have been added below to two articles on this matter most recently now appearing in The New York Times the latter originating from the Associated Press.
UPDATES: The Times more recently reports that faced with the growing likelihood that all three battleground state votes will be audited and/or recounted that (unidentified without explanation) "officials" in the "administration" defend the "integrity" of the vote. The Times curiously provided no information at all as to who or where those "officials" might be or as to why they are not identified. The Times further summarily refers to the Department of Homeland Security and "other intelligence officials" pre-election predictions discounting the possibility of Russian election hacking and essentially ignores that some other irregularity might turn up in recounts and/or audits even if the earlier predictions by the DHS and DNI prove correct. Interested readers can go to this more recent article added as a sixth link below. The Times the following day did then release a "U.S. Statement on Reliability of Election Results" it had been given by a "senior administration official" on the unexplained condition of anonymity which apparently was the source for the above-referenced article but not mentioned nor provided to the public until added by a link the following day by the Times. Interested readers can read the statement at the added seventh link below.
The Times further also reported that unsurprisingly the Hillary Clinton campaign had joined the Jill Stein initiated vote recount in Wisconsin to the extent of paying lawyers to participate in oversight and would do the same if Ms. Stein's Green Party further initiated recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, which has not yet completed its initial vote count. The Green Party's success in collecting what is expected to be seven million dollars in donations in a mere few days to fund recounts assuredly was made possible not mostly by Green Party supporters but by those holding out hope for a Clinton victory. Readers interested in more information on the Clinton campaign's "change of heart" to participate can go to the added eighth link below.
The recount saga continues as more recently Trump supporters have joined the fray by mounting various challenges seeking now to stop the three state vote recounts in their tracks seemingly on the basis of whatever arguments they find most expedient in each of the different state venues and depending on what available procedures may be feasible in each state. Their motivation is unclear and their arguments as to the futility of recounts seemingly at odds with Mr. Trump's oft-repeated assertions of a "rigged election" and his more recent tweet(s) since apparently winning the election by electoral votes nevertheless claiming (without evidence) that he actually won the popular vote as well if one deducts the "millions" of fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton who according to those who have been actually counting the votes now leads Trump by more than 2.5 million votes.
So far as to the challenges the Trump supporters have mounted seeking to halt the three state vote recounts the different state election officials involved have all taken positions strictly without exception along partisan lines. Readers interested in more information can go to the added ninth link below. On Saturday, 3 December 2016, Jill Stein dropped a pending bid for a Pennsylvania statewide vote recount after Pennsylvania courts imposed a $1 million bond requirement to start a statewide recount which she criticized including on the grounds that petitioners were "citizens of ordinary means."
Dr. Stein nevertheless as of Saturday evening had collected $6.9 million in donations to fund recount bids with further funds still being sought. A campaign for a much more limited recount of Pennsylvania votes in Philadelphia and other targeted areas rather than statewide is going forward. Meanwhile calling the bond requirement evidence of "antiquated" state law Jill Stein seemed to leave open the possibility of further plans for challenging the Pennsylvania vote stating that " [w]e will pursue every available remedy to ensure Pennsylvanians can trust what happened in this election." She also promised a forthcoming "major announcement" on this coming Monday morniing. Readers interested in more information can go to the tenth link below.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/22/the-department-of-justice-is-not-going-to-conduct-a-vote-audit-based-on-your-phoned-in-outrage/?utm_term=.0e7b3bfac178
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38087150
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton-trump.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/23/us/politics/ap-us-election-recount-push-.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/politics/hacking-russia-election-fears-barack-obama-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/us-statement-on-reliability-of-election-results.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/clinton-camp-will-join-push-for-wisconsin-ballot-recount.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/trump-recounts-wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/jill-stein-pennsylvania-recount.html
Copyright 2016 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment