Discussion: Nielsen: 'I Haven't Seen Evidence' That Russians Hacked Election To Help Trump (VIDEO)

TPM Article Topics
#222

She’s set for life with wingnut welfare.

People seriously underestimate the power that super-rich fascists have over the government (politicians and appointees) with the fact that guaranteed cushy living awaits them for making the desired calls.

It has made traditional bribery obsolete, and legally unenforceable. There are no payments upfront, or even explicit promises of payment. But everyone knows that the billionaires will come through for them down the road. Because that is essential for them to hold that same power over the next people to hold that same position.

4 Likes
#223

@sfarone Aw, Koch pimp, get a life. Herr Gropenfuhrer is historical treason, little Russkie coward.

#224

Another favorite bit from the article:

Nielsen also refused to name Russian Vladimir Putin as part of the hacking effort, placing the blame broadly with “Russian government actors.”

Yeah, rogue “Russian government actors”, acting without the authority or consent of Vlad the Novichoker, and in fact against his will. Totally believable. Happens all the time.

Second that headdesk.

ETA – I watched the video, which I hadn’t done before, relying on the article’s gloss (or, more specifically, the author’s gloss – in this case Kate Riga). Nielsen I think comes off better in the interview than Riga gives her credit for.

Here’s what happened.

The interviewer asked a rather disjointed, rambling question, but the gist of it was to try to pin her down on (1) whether the interference was at the direction of Putin, (2) whether she stood by something she said in May relative to that; namely, “I have not seen that conclusion”, and (3) whether it was done with the intent of aiding Trump.

The relevant part of her answer was:

What I would say is, it’s government, government actors, Russian government actors. I think we can all draw a conclusion what that means.

The exchange begins around 0:52.

The full quote, with that second sentence (emphasis added) changes things for me. Sure, she’s still dancing, but it carries the connotation of “We all know what ‘Russian government actors’ means in Putin’s Russia.”

At least, that’s how I read it, and part of it also has to do with body language and vocal inflection.

Those who previously “liked” my comment may now want to “unlike” it… but whatever, I call 'em as I see 'em, and I change my conclusions when new evidence directs it.

3 Likes
#225

@arawak

Today, she is a f*cking idiot helping a useless idiot.

1 Like
#226

Iraq is a special case where the professional IC said one thing, so Cheney set up a shadow IC to get the “information” he wanted.

FTFY

2 Likes
#227

But that wasn’t the issue. What Nielsen said was “I haven’t seen any evidence”.

Any. Evidence.

Given the amount of evidence that’s publicly known, never mind the amount of evidence that isn’t publicly known, that statement can’t be anything but a straight-up lie.

6 Likes
#228

Not just women. Aren’t there some people you went to college with or otherwise knew who got high paying jobs in corporations or law offices etc.and seemed to drink the Kool-Aide and become one dimensional people with no perspective on anything other than that of their employer? If that didn’t happen they would not have their high paying job. Something like this is a job requirement and necessary for advancement. People with broader perspectives and senses of humor and skepticism fail in these environments. Boot licking passive aggressive incompetents also tend to rise to the top in government as well, in my experience. Not always, not a description of many who advance, but often.

There was an article somewhere a few months ago where the writer interviewed some old school chums who talked about how she didn’t seem like the girl they hung with at Georgetown. Some people drink the Kool-Aide, often to great monetary reward, and some don’t.

#229

I’m a poll worker in New York City. They changed from 1940’s machines to scanned ballots a few years ago, finally. There are multiple checks and seals and locks etc. involved. The sites are staffed by amateurs, not bought off professionals. All the numbers have to add up. Police are there and sign off and then carry the ballots and totals on a sealed thumb drive. No internet involved. There is no practical way to cheat on any of it. The only possibility would be at the central location, and it is staffed by civil service drones. I don’t see any opportunity for corruption except maybe at the very top, and then there are still all those paper ballots sealed in bins.

2 Likes
#230

Properly run it works pretty well but with the degree of chaos found in Detroit it would appear to be quite vulnerable.

The things that are supposed to match in Michugan are the name and number of applications with the name and number of voters entered in the poll books to the number of ballots and torn off ballot strips while the number of votes counted shoukd never be more than the ballots issued.

First in Detroit they thought they had more ballots counted than voters or issued. This is now believed to be an artifact caused by voters pulling back the
Ir ballot if it starts to po misfeed. Up in that case, the machine counts the misfeed as a ballot but without registering any votes.

At the end the number of voter applications matched the number of ballots but both numbers were greater than the number of voters entered in the electronic poll books.

The type of fraud I am suggesting depends on physical manipulation and a read only hacking.

So at your polling places do the voters fill out voting application slips which are then handed to the voting staff? If so, how were they handled?

#231

LoL.

Exploiting a specific set of chaotic system weaknesses encountered in real time, difficult to predict in advance, requiring a conspiracy using prepared helpers on-site at multiple precincts, in one limited voting jurisdiction, to change votes cast, is the kind of non-scalable solution that proves the larger point about the difficulty of swinging a national election by manipulating votes cast.

By all means, let’s work toward hardened and audit-able voting and vote counting processes and systems. But let’s not seriously suggest systemic manipulation of votes cast led to the outcome in 2016. That’s like Trump saying he won the popular vote once all the illegal immigrant votes are subtracted.

#232

All I can say is that this from 'Randy Rainbow is so bloody fitting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=k-LTRwZb35A.

#233

The situation in Detroit has been going on for years. Highly predictable. Russians have a history of on ground actions in other countries and settings.

Other jurisdictions - such as PA – have unauditable voting machines.
So the method does not have to be the same country wide.

What woukd be critical is getting the races close enough that tinkering with the vote counts woukd be in the range that is plausible.

Easy? No. But the value for Putin woukd be great enough.

Could Putin have dine it? Yes. Dud he do it? Who knows. Woukd he expect bad consequences if he were caught doing it? On current evidence, what do you think?

#234

As I have said many times before, Nielson is simply a typical Trump skank who is more concerned with praising the Asshole-elect than doing her job. Sad.

#235

That takes guts, betting your life on this statement.

My one word for this political whore and traitor … meat-hooks and piano-wire.

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available