U.S. Special Counsel John Durham has released an indictment [pdf here] of Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann for lying to federal investigators in 2016 about the people and motives behind his FBI contact. He failed to tell them his intent was to spread a false Alfa Bank conspiracy theory on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
Working for the Perkins Coie law firm, while under contract with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, partner Michael Sussmann contacted FBI Legal Counsel James Baker to pitch evidence that a Russian bank was in digital communications with servers in Trump Tower. The Alfa Bank allegation was one of the key components for the ridiculous Trump-Russia narrative put together by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Sussmann wanted the FBI to investigate Donald Trump, so that Hillary Clinton could push a political fabrication about Donald Trump working with Russians to steal the presidential election.
According to the indictment, Sussmann failed to tell the FBI that he was giving them this information on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The FBI investigated the claims and found nothing; however, it was the appearance of the investigation that Clinton needed in order to leak/push the Trump-Russia story to the media and stir up the controversy. There had to be something to the “Trump-Russia” story, because the FBI was investigating it. That fabricated smear served its intended purpose, and the media ran with it.
With the indictment now public, The New York Times also now admits Michael Sussmann was their source for stories they wrote about Alfa bank:New York Times – […] In early September, the indictment said, Mr. Sussmann met with a New York Times reporter who would later draft a story about Alfa Bank, and also began work on a so-called white paper that would summarize and explain the researchers’ data and analysis, billing the time to the Clinton campaign.
On Sept. 12, the indictment said, Mr. Sussmann called Mr. Elias, the Clinton campaign lawyer, and spoke about his “efforts to communicate” with the Times reporter about the Alfa Bank allegations. Both billed the call to the campaign. And three days later, Mr. Elias exchanged emails with top campaign officials about the matter. (read more)
[…] Mr. Sussmann also continued to push the Alfa Bank story to reporters. A month before the election, as Times editors were weighing whether to publish an article the reporter had drafted, Mr. Sussmann told him he should show the editors an opinion essay saying the paper’s investigative reporters had not published as many stories regarding Mr. Trump as other media outlets, the indictment said. (read more)
Perkins Cole is “law firm-1”. Mark Elias is “campaign lawyer 1”. The “US Investigative Firm” is Fusion GPS. “Tech Executive-1” is likely Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, although there are other possibilities.
In March 2016, Fusion GPS approached Perkins Cole to discuss potential engagement in the development of opposition research on Donald Trump, fully aware that Perkins Cole represented both the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.
In April 2016, Perkins Coie retained Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Towards the end of the month, on April 29, Perkins Cole partner Michael Sussmann contacted Shawn Henry of CrowdStrike Services to hire the organization for the Democratic National Committee after a series of phishing e-mails started to affect their employees.
Before June 14, 2016, Sussmann, CrowdStrike Services and the Democratic National Committee carefully crafted a damage control story with regards to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, which Dmitri Alperovitch and Shawn Henry released to Ellen Nakashima at The Washington Post.
On June 14, 2016, Nakashima, with contributions from Tom Hamburger, published the article “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump” in The Washington Post.
After the article’s publishing, a number of bipartisan computer scientists — which included “John McCain Republicans” — started to search for Russian infiltrators. The members of the group were scattered across America and were numerous (there were at least nine members). To search for the infiltrators, they used the Domain Name System (DNS).
In late July 2016, a member of the bipartisan computer scientist organisation, known by the alias “Tea Leaves”, discovered potential malware moving from the Alfa Bank server to the Trump Organization server. The information “Tea Leaves” discovered was then circulated among his colleagues.
“Tea Leaves himself told The Intercept that he had to keep his identity and methods a secret because, ‘I run a cybersecurity company and I do not want DDOS and never have we been DDOS, nor do I want other attention.’” — The Intercept
“I also spoke with academics who vouched for Tea Leaves’ integrity and his unusual access to information. ‘This is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,’ said Camp. ‘When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.’” — Franklin Foer, Slate
October 31, 2016, Franklin Foer published the article, “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?”, in Slate. This article was then retweeted by Hillary Clinton in a tweet which read: “It’s time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia.It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016
This was soon followed by a statement from Jake Sullivan, tweeted through Hillary Clinton’s account: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”
At the same time, days before Election Day 2016, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee ceased funding Fusion GPS’s research. Fusion GPS then passed Steele’s reports to Marc Elias at Perkins Cole.
The rest, as they say, is history….Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016
From the Durham Indictment:
That Paul Manafort met with Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik and handed off internal polling data isn't fiction. Quote: "The exchange of polling data was an eye-catching data point, especially since it suggested Russia could have exploited such inside information to target influence campaigns aimed at boosting Trump's election bid in 2016".
ReplyDeleteThat Roger Stone was in communication (and coordinated) with Julian Assange (who got his hacked DNC data from Russia) isn't fiction.
Two KEY facts which CONFIRM that Donald Trump was working with Russians to steal the presidential election.
Neither the 2016 not the 2020 elections were stolen. Show us the voter fraud that tipped the election in either direction. There isn't any. Trump legitimately won 2016. Biden legitimately won 2020. All else is crybabyism.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you are trying to prove that America elected a puppet of Russia when they elected Trump - well, duh.
So, if a con man convinces you (via deception) to voluntarily give him money (or something else of value), that isn't theft? The 2016 election was stolen by tRump. Unless you think everyone who voted for him WANTED a puppet of Russia.
ReplyDeleteI'm still a little surly about the $500 I gave to the Johnson-Weld campaign the day before Weld came out and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Other than that, I see no fraud in that election. Republicans and right-wing organizations had consistently campaigned against the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency for the prior 25 years. Russian intervention wasn't necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe only "stolen" presidential election in American history that I am aware of involved necromancy in Tarrant County, Texas when JFK beat Nixon.
ReplyDeleteIllinois also, but both the Kennedy and Nixon campaigns were committing large-scale fraud there to the point Nixon squashed pursuing the evidence against the Daley machine in Chicago to keep similar fraudulent vote count schemes on his behalf in southern Illinois undiscovered. The shit in Tarrant County Texas that gave the election to Kennedy was the tipping point. My point is the 2020 election was clean as a whistle compared to 1960.
ReplyDeleteSo, we got a decade of civil unrest, people in the South upset with Kennedy playing nuclear chicken with Cuba were sent to be killed in Vietnam, and the beat goes on...
ReplyDeleteIt still took 30 years for Republicans to make electoral gains in the South. Nixon's southern strategy was to flip the racists that gave us Social Security and Medicare 25 years after he left politics? That's some strong acid, Twiggy.
BTW, suppressing voters and forcing people onto provisional ballots (who should have voted normally) is election fraud. As opposed to the voter fraud republicans lie about. The election was stolen in 2016. Al Gore won in 2000 and Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Dotard tried (but failed) to steal the election in 2020. Overwhelming voter turnout stopped him, thank God. But the states' efforts at voter suppression could lead to the election being stolen back by Dotard in 2024 (if he isn't in prison). Why Democrats MUST pass federal voter protection legislation.
ReplyDeleteProtect the Steal.. the real name of the Democrats HB1.
ReplyDeleteProtect and enhance the steal... the real reason behind the republicans opposition to federal voter protection legislation.
ReplyDeletebtw, Michael Sussmann, lawyer charged in Durham probe, pleads not guilty. Quote, "Sussmann has vowed to fight his charge and called the prosecution politically motivated". And, FYI, that a Russian bank was in digital communications with servers in Trump Tower was not proven to be fiction, the FBI investigated and found "insufficient evidence". And, as I already pointed out in my first post, Dotard-Russia collusion has already been CONFIRMED.
ReplyDelete"Proves it all fiction" = No. One lawyer being accused of lying about working for HRC at the time he went to the authorities (he says he wasn't) doesn't prove an ALREADY CONFIRMED conspiracy to be "all fiction".
You're both drinking Draino. There's not been a stolen Presidential election since 1960.
ReplyDeleteNew York Times and Miami Herald audits of the 2000 election found Bush won Florida, thus the Presidency.
Hillary Clinton faced an uphill battle against 25 years of anti-Hillary campaigning that anyone but Bernie Sanders would have won against her. Hillary didn't even campaign in 270 electoral college points worth of states. Get out of here with that noise.
Donald Trump never achieved a job approval rating above most broken toilets, paved the superhighway path of China's rise to economic superpower, surrendered the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia to Islamic extremists, and willfully denied the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic, all while draining the swamp of any national security figure not loyal to Russia. His loss was, and perhaps ironically to a no-brainer.
Gore narrowly lost. Hillary and Trump both lacked realistic standing to challenge their legitimate defeats.
Nixon in 1960? Lacked the balls to prove his campaign while fraudulent wasn't as fraudulent as Kennedy's.
But hey, at least those the government would enslave to go fight wars are old enough to vote now.
Florida recounts make Gore winner (excerpt)... Al Gore, not George Bush, should be sitting in the White House today as the newly elected president of the United States, two new independent probes of the disputed Florida election contest have confirmed.
ReplyDeleteThe first survey, conducted on behalf of the Washington Post, shows that Mr Gore had a nearly three-to-one majority among 56,000 Florida voters whose November 7 ballot papers were discounted because they contained more than one punched hole. The second and separate survey, conducted on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, shows that Mr Gore had a majority of 682 votes among the discounted "dimpled" ballots in Palm Beach county. (The Guardian 1/29/2001).
Clinton's Ground Game Didn't Cost Her The Election (excerpt)... Clinton did not allocate her time and resources between states in the way we would have recommended. In particular, she should have spent more time playing defense in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Colorado and less time trying to turn North Carolina into a blue state or salvage Iowa from turning red.
Here's the thing, though: The evidence suggests those decisions didn't matter very much. In fact, Clinton’s ground game advantage over Trump may have been as large as the one Obama had over Mitt Romney in 2012. It just wasn't enough to save the Electoral College for her.
There are several major problems with the idea that Clinton's Electoral College tactics cost her the election. For one thing, winning Wisconsin and Michigan — states that Clinton is rightly accused of ignoring — would not have sufficed to win her the Electoral College. She'd also have needed Pennsylvania, Florida or another state where she campaigned extensively. For another, Clinton spent almost twice as much money as Trump on her campaign in total. So even if she devoted a smaller share of her budget to a particular state or a particular activity, it may nonetheless have amounted to more resources overall (5 percent of a $969 million budget is more than 8 percent of a $531 million one).
But most importantly, the changes in the vote from 2012 to 2016 are much better explained by demographics than by where the campaigns spent their time and money. (Fivethirtyeight 2/13/2017).
Demographics helped tRump "win". "lots of white voters without college degrees", convinced by Russia's influence campaign, voted for Dotard. If not for Russia's meddling, HRC would have won. Or come a lot closer to winning. Increased voter suppression (Interstate Crosscheck) was another bigly reason HRC "lost". HRC "lost" because of Russian interference, collusion and gop cheating.
The theft of the presidency in Gore's case is more clear-cut. Gore won Florida and the Supreme Court staged a coup, anointing the loser.
In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. - New York Times
ReplyDeleteGore lost the election count in Florida, and would have lost even by the election recount method his lawyers argued for. Only by some dubious combination method of counting blank votes and double votes (i.e. counting spoiled ballots and unused ballots) as Gore votes do you get Gore over the victory threshold.
Dude lost, narrowly, but lost by the very counting method his campaign demanded.
We probably should reform the Electoral College though. Whwtever candidate wins the popular vote in a state should get both EC votes represented by their Senators. The remaining EC votes should be awarded individually to whoever won the popular vote in a Congressional district.
ReplyDeleteWe'd never have to worry about a Democrat becoming President ever again.
Hillary didn't outspend Trump if you count the $3 Billion in free airtime the mainstream media gave Trump. Hell, the douchebag is out of office and they're still carrying his water.
ReplyDeleteNew York Times Perpetuates the Myth that George Bush Won the 2000 Election (excerpt)... The New York Times did not do its own recount. It did participate in a consortium. Here's what the consortium actually said: "If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin". Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder, NYT 11/12/2001. (Alternet 5/29/2008).
ReplyDeleteIf we went by the popular vote, it's the republicans who'd have to worry about a candidate representing their party ever winning the White House again :P
If wishes were horses beggars would ride.
ReplyDeleteThe "seven single standards" that would have counted non-votes and invalid votes for Gore, for no legitimate, logical, defensible reason to do so*
ReplyDelete(* Besides claiming Democrat voters are incompetent and illiterate)
Gore lost, including by the standard he argued for in court. Get over it.
"If wishes were horses beggars would ride".
ReplyDeleteWish = "Durham Finally Roots Out and Exposes the Source of the Trump-Russia Conspiracy and Proves it ALL FICTION!"
It surely isn't reality.
Yes, Bush v. Gore Did Steal the Election [away from the rightful winner, Al Gore] (excerpt)... The newspapers [that did the recount] assumed that the counties would only have looked at "undervotes" — ballots that did not register any votes for president — and ignored "overvotes" — ballots that registered more than one vote for president. An overvote would be a ballot in which the machine mistakenly picked up a second vote for president, or in which a voter both marked a box and wrote in the name of the same candidate. A hand recount in which an examiner is judging the "intent of the voter" would turn those ballots that were originally discarded into countable votes. Counting overvotes in which the intent of the voter was CLEAR would have resulted in Gore winning the recount. (Intelligencer 6/25/2012).
Voting machine error doesn't equate to Democratic voter illiteracy or incompetence. And I don't give a crap about what standard Gore's lawyers argued for. The standard that SHOULD have been applied (had the Supreme Court not stopped the recount) was CLEAR voter intent. The Supreme Court stopped the recount (and stole the election for gwb) because they worried (correctly) that Al Gore actually won.
I will never "get over it". Much like Minus will never get over his belief that Joe Biden stole the election. The difference is I'm right and he's delusional.
^^Thinks his own sh*t doesn't stink^^
ReplyDeleteDerv, you're arguing beyond with the Gore was willing to do. You're arguing for counting votes that had to be thrown out under Florida law. Your argument ls precisely that Gore would have won if they counted illegal votes. Well, no shit.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying the ballots where voter intent was clear should have been counted. What Gore or his lawyers argued for doesn't matter, as the Florida Supreme Court said such ballots were to be counted. The US Supreme Court stopped the recount. I don't know what "illegal votes" you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteVoter intent is only clear on a correctly punched ballot. All else is speculative bullshit.
ReplyDeleteGore should have attracted more literate, competent voters in Florida.
The FL supreme court didn't agree. And no degree of literacy or competency will have any effect on a malfunctioning voting machine. btw, stupid voters contributed bigly to Dotard's 2016 "win".
ReplyDeleteA punch ballot is binary. It's correctly punched or it isn't.
ReplyDeleteSo it wasn't the 2020 election in Florida that made "hanging chads" infamous? Where does that come from then?
ReplyDeleteSounds like a North African sharia thing.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia: In the 2000 United States presidential election, many Florida votes used Votomatic-style punched card ballots where incompletely punched holes resulted in partially punched chads: either a "hanging chad", where one or more corners were still attached, or a "fat chad" or "pregnant chad", where all corners were still attached, but an indentation appears to have been made. These votes were not counted by the tabulating machines. The aftermath of the controversy (see Bush v. Gore) caused the rapid discontinuance of punch card ballots in the United States...
ReplyDelete"It's correctly punched or it isn't"... by the machine. The machine incorrectly punched the ballots. And it's a machine malfunction that caused people's votes not to be counted, not stupidity. The stupidity is yours, not the voters who were disenfranchised. Even though their intent was clear and their votes should have been counted (and Gore should have been elected president).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBack to the original Minus FJ topic, a delusion that has Durham "proving" Dotard didn't collude with Russia - the Durham investigation has clearly ended up a dud. Given that the Durham investigation was supposed to end with mass arrests (and convictions) of Obama administration officials. Yet it ends (?) with a charge of lying to the FBI. NOT about whether or not a server in Dotard tower was in communication with a Russian server, but about whether or not Sussmann was working for HRC at the time*.
ReplyDeleteaka absolutely NOTHING (re the Dotard/Russia conspiracy) is "proven fiction" with this charge. The server communication allegation remains unproven. Just because something is unproven, does not mean it didn't happen. btw, the charge that the 2020 election was "stolen" has been completely debunked, but that doesn't stop Minus from believing it. LOL!
Also, as I pointed out with my first comment, that collusion occurred via Paul Manafort and via Roger Stone has certainly not been proven "all fiction". In fact, these vectors of collusion have been proven and confirmed over and over. That collusion occurred is fact. The fiction is that Dotard was "framed".
*Sounds like one of those "process crime" that tRumpers laughed at when various Dotard associates were charged. Yet (somehow) when a (alleged) Clinton person is charged with a process crime, suddenly it's a BFD and "proves" the (confirmed) Russia/Dotard collusion is "fiction". LOL! Perhaps (if he is convicted) President Joe Biden should pardon Sussmann?
trumpers cheered when Dotard issued his pardons. All Sussmann did was give the FBI a tip. He says he did not lie to the FBI because he was not working for HRC at the time. If true, this sounds like a wrongful persecution to me.
AlterNet: Sussmann is charged with lying to FBI general counsel Jim Baker in a one-on-one meeting during the dying weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign. Baker didn't take notes. One of his underlings later took notes on Baker's recollection of the conversation. Those notes say that Sussmann wasn't acting on behalf of any client, but the next words are "works for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Foundation". ...
ReplyDeleteThe whole case hangs on whether Baker correctly understood and accurately remembered what Sussmann told him. Sussmann denies that he lied to Baker, and we already know that Baker's memory of that exchange is tenuous. Baker testified in 2018 that he didn't remember whether Sussmann said he was there on behalf of any client. The standard in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and here's reasonable doubt staring us in the face: The only two people who were at the meeting disagree about what was said, and one of them has already testified under oath that he doesn't remember. This case is so flimsy that it raises serious ethical questions about why Durham is bringing it at all. [end]
This is a frivolous prosecution. Sussmann won't be convicted.
Looks like I misread something elsewhere. Sussmann stated that he DID work for the DNC and the Clinton foundation. He said he wasn't there on behalf of either. Sounds unprovable to me that he "lied". This should be dismissed pretty quickly.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't read the indictment... he "billed" them for his time at the meeting.
ReplyDeleteMachines don't punch ballot cards, Stoopid. People do.
ReplyDeleteSo Sussmann is going to be convicted? I'll believe it when it happens. Even if he is, so what? Paul Manafort was convicted. It's confirmed that he handed off Dotard campaign polling data to a Russian agent, yet you say the Dotard-Russia conspiracy has somehow been proven ALL fiction. LOL. Did Sussmann bill the Clinton campaign for his time meeting with the FBI?
ReplyDeleteFYI, that "The FBI investigated the claims and found nothing" (re a Russian bank being in digital communications with servers in Dotard Tower) is false. As per a 9/2/2020 Just Security story, Senators on a committee that looked into it "remain in the dark about the reasons for the server communications".
Quote: "Based on the FBI's assessment, the Committee did not find the DNS activity reflected the existence of covert communication between Alfa Bank and Trump Organization personnel". What's the "nothing" the FBI found? The "nothing" isn't that there was no communication between Alfa Bank and Trump Organization servers.
As for people punching ballots... a dimpled chad, a fat chad, a pregnant chad, or a hanging chad... all clearly indicate voter intent. I've never resided anywhere where votes were punched ballots were used. Florida discontinued use of these machines. They obviously created problems in 2020. To blame voters for poorly designed voting machines is what is stupid.
Manafort shared classified data with the Russians? If not, the law broken was was....???
ReplyDeleteHe shared Dotard campaign internal polling data.
ReplyDelete...[because] the data Manafort shared with Kilimnik was used to materially guide spending by Russian nationals to influence the 2016 presidential election [the] Trump campaign... received an "in-kind contribution" from the Russian nationals in the form of "coordinated expenditures" in violation of multiple federal campaign finance laws. (source).
Why do you ask what law was broken? I thought you said Russian collusion was "all fiction". Yet you try to justify it by (incorrectly) suggesting no law was broken?
...in the process CONFIRMING you know there was collusion.
ReplyDeleteWow, four-six months before the election Trump's polls were predicting micro-outcomes in just the key districts. Who knew? You'd think Trump would spend HIS money there, instead of relying on $100k of Russian Facebook ads. LOL!
ReplyDeleteHow much did Hillary our-spend Trump and the "Russians" by? She should have hired Steele and the FBI to steal Trump's internal polling data instead of hatching that elaborate Perkins Coie plan to frame him and his aids as Russian spies.
ReplyDeleteMissouri had punch ballots up until after the Sore-Loserman clown show in Florida. We never had a problem with them.
ReplyDeleteQuote: "Executives from Twitter said in a statement that the Russian state media agency Russia Today spent as much as $247,100 in ads targeting U.S. markets in 2016".
ReplyDeleteSo, that's 350k on Facebook and Twitter. And don't forget the millions of tweets coming from Russian bots and troll farms. Using Twitter is free. Though these people got paid a salary. Other Russians were paid to write bot code. That's a lot of uncounted money spent on the 2016 election.
As for FL never having a problem with punch ballots... you said the issue was stupid voters. Those voters were Floridians. Did a virus that turns people stupid sweep through FL just prior to the 2000 vote?
I don't know where it ranked in 2000, but currently FL doesn't rank in the bottom 10 re average IQ by state.
ReplyDeleteLess than $500k spending by Russia did more than the $3.1b of overspend by Democrats? Wow. That was some really good polling data.
ReplyDeleteIf there was a stupidity virus in 2000 that hit Florida, it must have only hit the counties that Gore wanted recounts in.
ReplyDeleteAs for literacy rates, Florida bottoms out at #47 of 50 states. Missouri is #10 of 50. Probably why we didn't have issues with punch ballots and they lead the nation in accidental rectal lacerations from broken lightbulbs.
Not as bad as laugh yourself sick at the record levels of illiteracy in liberal shitholes like California and New York, but still pretty low. Florida Man jokes started in 2000.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLess than $500k spending by Russia...
ReplyDeleteThat's money they paid Facebook and Twitter. It doesn't count money they paid troll farm workers or bot code writers. And they were pumping out lies. Whereas the Clinton campaign spent money on truthful ads. Truth is at a disadvantage to lies. Why telling bold faced lies was Dotard's modus operandi as a candidate and as predisent.
Also as ex-predisent. Dotard's lies are moving republican state legislatures to pass laws which could allow them (regardless of how the people in their state vote) to just give Dotard their electors. If so, lies win. It won't matter how much money the Biden re-election campaign spends.
fyi, people being stupid isn't a valid excuse for ignoring voter intent. If that is what explains what happened (mass Democratic voter stupidity). As opposed to the machines being poorly designed. And I'm sure the gwb campaign would have been arguing FOR counting ballots based on voter intent if Gore had won after a large number of ballots were thrown out because they weren't punched through completely.
"Hanging chad" *DOES NOT EQUAL* you're too dumb to follow instructions and therefore your vote doesn't count. Or it absolutely should NOT have.
Anyway, if you want to disenfranchise dumb people (aka trump voters), it's going to hurt republicans more than Democrats. LOL.
Truthful ads like "Trump-Russia"? BAWH!
ReplyDeleteTruthful ads like Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian agent?
ReplyDeleteHillary the wannabe neocon vs Trump the wannabe corporatist
ReplyDelete"Hanging chad" *DOES NOT EQUAL* you're too dumb to follow instructions and therefore your vote doesn't count.
ReplyDeleteIt does when the ballot instructions specifically state that the chad must be completely punched out, and there are no election laws dictating someone is supposed to guess what a spoiled ballot is supposed to mean.
Missouri has color-in-the-bubble balloting now. If someone doesn't mark their ballot fully, their vote doesn't count either. Maybe that wouldn't fly in illiterate states that Democrats rely on.
ReplyDeleteRemember this picture? It's pretty famous. This person isn't trying to determine voter intent? Why was he allowed to handle and examine ballots if such ballots were just tossed when the machine couldn't read them?
ReplyDeletebtw, the Red states are the least educated in the US.
Ah yes. The blue islands that dominate the most populous metropolitan areas of red states are just overflowing with High IQ Elitists that pay all the taxes and commit none of the crimes. How dare we laugh at these ghetto-dwelling paragons of citizenship?
ReplyDeleteAn idiot looking for non-existent votes with a magnifying glass is far more hilarious.
Your comment didn't refute anything I wrote.
ReplyDeleteI didn't have to. We already know the bluer the state, the more illiterate the population.
ReplyDeleteThousands of "high school graduates" that can't read lol
ReplyDeleteLike you
ReplyDeleteRed states are the least educated in the US.
ReplyDeleteFYI, California is a huge state with a lot of low-IQ republican residents. FL usually goes republican. Proof that, the deeper red the state, the more illiterate the population.
Nope
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a game you want to play, Derp. Democrat stronghold Los Angeles County CA has a literacy rate of 66%...
...as in dumb as doorknobs
Jeez, what a liar. Los Angeles County isn't 66% illiterate. As per Google, "53% of adults have low literacy levels". They can read English, just not well. And it's because they did not grow up in the US, attend US schools, or learn English while young (when the brain is best able to learn a language). Many of these people likely don't vote (because they are undocumented or not US citizens). And an adult isn't a "derp" because they aren't fluent in multiple languages, asshole.
ReplyDeleteRed state republicans who grew up in the US and attended US schools, yet have low literacy levels are the "derps". These tRump-voting dummies aren't even fluid in their native language of English (able to speak, read, write at more than a 6th grade level). These are the idiots who distrust vaccines but will go to a feed store to buy (and later ingest) horse dewormer. LOL.
66% literacy = 34% illiterate you fucking moron
ReplyDeleteLA County in California is the most illiterate county in the most illiterate state. The same is true everywhere. Show me a blue county and I'll show you the most illiterate part of that state.
Even Jackson, Mississippi, one of the most backward places in the blue spots of America has a higher literacy rate that Los Angeles lol
ReplyDeleteLearn to read, Derpish Sanders.
ReplyDeleteIf I don't know how to read, how did I misread "literacy rate" for "illiteracy rate"? My point remains valid. There are a lot of Mexican immigrants who are fluent in Spanish living in California (people who aren't fluent in English). You ignore this because it doesn't serve your FALSE narrative.
ReplyDeleteBzzt. Wrong. Learn to read Deepish Sanders. The website I linked even tells all that can read that it gathered data from English speakers. A third of LA County can't read or write English.
ReplyDeletePick another blue county anywhere. Look how illiterate it is. I dare ya.
You give me another one. How about in a blue state that doesn't have a ton of native Spanish speakers residing in it. btw, native Spanish speakers learned to speak English but not read or write it so well? You're a derp if you think that's surprising. As opposed to a fact that other people would say "duh" in regards to.
ReplyDeleteMaryland/Baltimore? Average IQ of Baltimore City population...
ReplyDeleteToday, Baltimore is 65% African American, and 32% non-Hispanic white.
Baltimoreans who fled the city moved mostly to neighboring Baltimore County. The County, which surrounds the city, is the first stop on the way out. Thirty years ago Baltimore County was lily white. Today, African Americans are 17 percent of its 726,000 inhabitants. And they keep coming. …
Baltimore is typical of many Midwestern and Northern cities, whose demographics were forever changed by the great black migration of the twentieth century. Not unexpectedly we found a cognitive discontinuity at the city line. Surprising, however, was its magnitude. Whereas suburban mean IQs (86 for blacks, 99 for whites) conform more or less to national norms, city IQs are dreadfully low. With a mean IQ of 76, inner-city blacks fall about 0.6 SD below the African American average nationally. More than a third have death-penalty immunity on grounds of mental retardation. The inner-city white mean of 86 is nearly a full standard deviation below the national white average. By this measure, whites fared worse than blacks.
You couldn't find a more "Democratic" city in the entire nation.
ReplyDeleteBaltimore city itself is 16% illiterate. If you include Baltimore County that drops to 7% illiterate
ReplyDeleteBased on voting data compiled by political news organization Politico and a review of current and historical representation in the U.S. Congress, 24/7 Wall St. created an index to measure the political leanings of county residents nationwide. Prince George’s County is not just the bluest county in Maryland, but also the most Democratic-leaning county in the nation. King County, Texas, on the other hand, is the reddest county — the most Republican — in the country.
ReplyDeletePrince George's County MD = 22% illiterate
King County TX = 10% illiterate
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What county do you live in, Derpish?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what county "Derpish" lives in. Neither 16% nor 7% are anywhere near 34%. As per this map a majority of states where literacy rates are low are Red (the citizens vote for republicans to represent them).
ReplyDeleteDon't generalize, Derpish. We can be precise and locate the most illiterate demographic area in every state is where Democrats hold that county's majority of voters.
ReplyDeleteYou know, a fact most people would say "duh" in regards to.
Ask your mom what county you live in.
ReplyDeleteThe county I live in currently went bigly for Dotard. I know where I live. I know where I used to live. I don't need to ask anyone.
ReplyDeleteYou should move away so the literacy rate increases
ReplyDeleteThe literacy rate in any given area isn't determined by testing every single person who lives there. If I moved it would make no difference either way. Also, one person's literacy would be insignificant re the literacy of an entire county.
ReplyDelete