I sub-titled it “Coats & Trump Relationship Souring.”

I have a lot of stuff underlined on those two pages. I am not sure which parts Winslow thinks are so important. That part mainly deals with Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump wanted to actually release proof of Russian malware in Florida computer systems, and he authorized Coats to do so.

Personally, I thought this was evidence of one of Trump’s BETTER executive decisions.



-Laelth

“The Russian malware was sophisticated and could be activated in counties with particular demographics. For instance, in areas with higher percentages of Black residents, the malware could erase every tenth voter, almost certainly reducing the total vote count for Democrats. The same could potentially be activated to reduce Trump votes in Republican districts.”

-Bob Woodward, Rage, p. 117

-Laelth

It would give Russia a +10%/-10% say in our election if this malware isn’t ferreted out.

This is probably why Trump insists on talking to Putin so regularly. He wants to insure that the Russian 10% goes his way.

-Laelth

They’re going to cheat any way they can. They are more emboldened now since they got away with it in 2016.

tells us if that malware was ever removed or not. I mean, presumably, you can remove malware, right? Or, no?

Yes, presumably Florida could remote it, if they wanted to, but why would they if they have Putin’s assurance that he will use the malware to help Republicans?

-Laelth

The only documented interference has to do with voter registration, not voting, software.

It would have the effect of removing 10% of voters (not votes) in a specific county. There are some checks and balances, but overcoming this particular hack requires the voter to show up and attempt to vote, be given a provisional ballot, and then following up to correct the removal from the voter registration rolls. Once people vote provisionally, they tend to ignore the last step - so their vites aren't counted (if the issue is one of registratio.) The hack itself, would require detective work - someone noticing the pattern of removed voters, tracing it to the counties that "removed" them, comparing reasons for removal and noticing there are none. Since not all voters vote every election, only a fraction of those who were removed will attemp to vote - making the cause of the trouble even harder to trace.

In contrast, removing votes is much more immediately obvious. There are multiple checks on number of voters (everyone checks in on one app (which counts them), they shift to a second app for voting (which also counts them) and, in places where they use paper ballots there are numbered ballot stubs). Cross-checking the two electronic and one physical count for ballots cast is part of the reconciling that (generally) is done by pollworkers at the end of the day before election materials are returned to the board of elections - and counted again at the board of elections and, I believe, an additional time before certificaiton. Removing votes (as opposed to voters) would be caught instantly.

Discovering that they WERE able to do it, after the fact, is the way WE roll.



Our computer experts are apparently sitting around with the thumbs up their asses. (Yeah, yeah, we don't know what they are doing... You'd think WE could match whatever chess game they are playing. Apparently not.)

or by actually documenting it all has to do with voter registration, not votes.

And the unrealistic hacks that have been demonstrated shift votes, not delete them (becuase deleting them is too obvious).

None of the hacks I've seen demonstrated (and, as far as I'm aware I've reviewed all that have come to national attention) use realistic election settings. All involve having unfettered access to the machines and freedom to do things that election workers or observers would immediately report as suspicious.

Even if it is possible to hack electronic equipment (and it generally is), it isn't happening if the only means of carrying out the hack will be visible to anyone observing the hack (like, for example, opening the machine up, turnint it over, inserting something other than the voter card, inserting voter cards multiple times, etc.) it isn't happening.

Trump initially was supportive of confronting the issue and then on a dime, without anyone seeing it coming, blew up in a rage over Coats giving it so much attention.

Not to those pages yet, just began it.

My first thought when I saw this thread was, “Hey I got the book!” Then I thought, oh, um, well.

Link to tweet

TY TY