Skip to content

Amid 4.8 Million Miscounted Michigan Votes Michigan Supreme Court Colludes With Russia and Declares There Is No Problem

January 11, 2017

The Michigan Supreme Court ended Jill Stein’s recount efforts in Michigan, claiming that since she lost so terribly, any allegations of Michigan’s elections being hacked wouldn’t be investigated. Actually, the judgment rested on the fact that Jill Stein wasn’t “injured” by failing to look into Michigan voting irregularities, so no investigation would be allowed. This reeks of partisan bullshit, because all over Michigan, voting “irregularities,” or just plain mistakes, meant that at first, a federal judge out of Detroit ordered 4.8 million votes recounted. The Michigan Supreme Court halted any investigatory efforts to determine why so many Michigan votes were miscounted. and when the recount process started, 60% of Detroit’s votes were deemed ineligible, according to reports by The Detroit News :

Overall, state records show 10.6 percent of the precincts in the 22 counties that began the retabulation process couldn’t be recounted because of state law that bars recounts for unbalanced precincts or ones with broken seals.

The problems were the worst in Detroit, where discrepancies meant officials couldn’t recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60 percent. And two-thirds of those precincts had too many votes.

“There’s always going to be small problems to some degree, but we didn’t expect the degree of problem we saw in Detroit. This isn’t normal,” said Krista Haroutunian, chairwoman of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers.

The new report, compiled by Wayne County elections officials, sheds light on the extent of the problems and shows a systematic tendency toward counting more votes than the previous Wayne County report, which didn’t specify if precincts had over-counted or under-counted ballots.

Republican state senators last week called for an investigation in Wayne County, including one precinct where a Detroit ballot box contained only 50 of the 306 ballots listed in a poll book, according to an observer for Trump.

City officials have told state officials that ballots in that precinct were never taken out of a locked bin below the voting machine tabulator on Election Day, said Secretary of State spokesman Fred Woodhams.

“That’s what we’ve been told, and we’ll be wanting to verify it,” Woodhams said. “At any rate, this should not have happened.”

The state is not calling the audit an investigation, “but based on what we find, it could lead to more,” he said.

Why not have an audit with this many problems? What would possess the Michigan Supreme Court to use a procedural stance to stop an investigation into obvious election malfunctions? There are no outward explanations for determining why some votes were over counted and others under counted:

Of the data available, though, machines tallied at least 388 more ballots, according to a Detroit News analysis of the records. That’s 0.16 percent of the 248,000 ballots cast in the city that voted for Clinton 95 percent to 3 percent over Trump.

Haroutunian said she didn’t know what to make of the trend toward over-counting because there was no explanation from Detroit poll workers. The city had another 34 precincts that were out of balance, but they included explanations for the discrepancies.

Under state law, those precincts could be recounted because there were explanations. The law states that original results stand in precincts that can’t be recounted.

Washtenaw County Elections Director Ed Golembiewski said discrepancies tend to “even themselves out” — there are usually about as many precincts whose machines report more votes than fewer votes. But he said the large number of precincts with over-votes in Detroit isn’t necessarily significant.

“It’s usually human error,” Golembiewski said. “I have not seen anyone intentionally try to run an extra ballot. You aren’t going to rig an election three ballots at a time. You’re going to need a far more systematic and thorough approach than a couple of people here and there stuffing three extra ballots.”

Jill Stein wasn’t wrong to assume that there were such widespread voting irregularities. The recount effort unearthed multiple voting irregularities, so why did the Michigan Supreme Court halt it? Is the Michigan Supreme Court colluding to elect Trump to obfuscate a Clinton win in Michigan?

Last week, Baxter told The News 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. He said many jammed when voters tried repeatedly to stuff single ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if poll workers don’t adjust counters.

Former Detroit mayoral candidate Tom Barrow, who has challenged the city’s elections process for years, said blaming workers is a cop-out. According to city protocol, all precincts are supposed to be balanced when the ballot boxes are sealed at the end of the night, he said.

“The city is responsible. Janice Winfrey is responsible,” Barrow said. “This didn’t happen because of crazy, dyslexic senior citizens who are working as poll workers, like they want to portray this. That’s people who are trying to deny responsibility.”

He has asserted on social media that Winfrey cost Clinton the election in Michigan.

Here is a breakdown of the irregularities in Detroit’s 662 precincts:

■236 precincts in balance — equal numbers of voters counted by workers and machines

■248 precincts with too many votes and no explanation (77 were 1 over; 62 were 2 over, 37 were 3 over, 20 were 4 over, 52 were 5 or more over).

■144 precincts with too few votes and no explanation (81 were 1 under, 29 were 2 under; 19 were 3 under; 7 were 4 under; 8 were 5 or more under)

■34 precincts out of balance but with an explanation

Here is the thing, back in July, July 28, 2016, to be exact, Congress issued a report to state elections boards reporting  cyber attacks had already taken place. Some voter registration polls had been hacked, according to Congressional leaders, and a bipartisan notice was sent to all states to offer federal assistance to help prevent or thwart election hacking, meaning that the federal government had already confirmed reports of cyber hacking before the election even started:

“We urge the states to take full advantage of the robust public and private sector resources available to them to ensure that their network infrastructure is secure from attack,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote Wednesday.

Back in July, it was reported that voter registration lists had already been hacked:

The bipartisan letter follows reports that more than a dozen states’ voter registration rolls have been targeted by hackers, according to CNN, including successful hacks in Illinois and Arizona. 

In the bipartisan letter, sent to Todd Valentine, president of the National Association of State Election Directors, congressional leaders also underscored that the Department of Homeland Security is ready to provide cybersecurity help to states that request it.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency have both confirmed that Russian hackers interfered with the 2016 Presidential Election, so why is the Michigan Supreme Court denying any hacking could have occurred? Just recently, Congress had a hearing in which the US intelligence community determined that not only did Russia interfere in the United States election to undermine confidence, but it interfered to the point of choosing a US President, a collusion the Michigan Supreme Court seems to have joined. It’s not far-fetched, at least two Michigan Supreme Court justices had to recuse themselves from ruling on Michigan voting recount efforts because they are on Trump’s list of nominees for specialized appointments. The Michigan Supreme Court acknowledged its own bias, and the security community stated that Russia pushed to elect Trump, according to reports in the Washington Post, so it’s not unfair to state that the Michigan Supreme Court used a procedural ruling to halt investigations because the Michigan Supreme Court is in collusion with Russia and Trump:

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

The key issue here when weighing what part the Michigan Supreme Court played in this drama is whether or not the Michigan Supreme Court justices has plausible deniability, or in other words, did they have the information that Russian hacks had occurred and then lied and said they didn’t? It looks like the Michigan Supreme Court must have, because even the White House knew of the cyber attacks, and while it failed to sanction Russia, it’s not possible that Michigan Supreme Court justices could claim they didn’t know about the security problems that Congress, the FBI and CIA all confirmed:

The reluctance of the Obama White House to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions before Election Day upset Democrats on the Hill as well as members of the Clinton campaign.

Within the administration, top officials from different agencies sparred over whether and how to respond. White House officials were concerned that covert retaliatory measures might risk an escalation in which Russia, with sophisticated cyber-capabilities, might have less to lose than the United States, with its vast and vulnerable digital infrastructure.

The White House’s reluctance to take that risk left Washington weighing more-limited measures, including the “naming and shaming” approach of publicly blaming Moscow.

Russian hacking has been a proven problem since July of 2016, and there is no way for the Michigan Supreme Court justices to deny knowing anything about it.According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration needed Congress to issue a report to avoid allegations of political interference; however, there is no reason for the Michigan Supreme Court, given all of the information available, to obstruct an investigation into clear and widespread voting problems in Michigan to rule additional hacking, not that hacking never occurred, because that was proven, but that it didn’t occur on election day in Michigan.

By mid-September, White House officials had decided it was time to take that step, but they worried that doing so unilaterally and without bipartisan congressional backing just weeks before the election would make Obama vulnerable to charges that he was using intelligence for political purposes.

Instead, officials devised a plan to seek bipartisan support from top lawmakers and set up a secret meeting with the Gang of 12 — a group that includes House and Senate leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of both chambers’ committees on intelligence and homeland security.

Obama dispatched Monaco, FBI Director James B. Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to make the pitch for a “show of solidarity and bipartisan unity” against Russian interference in the election, according to a senior administration official.

Specifically, the White House wanted congressional leaders to sign off on a bipartisan statement urging state and local officials to take federal help in protecting their voting-registration and balloting machines from Russian cyber-intrusions.

Though U.S. intelligence agencies were skeptical that hackers would be able to manipulate the election results in a systematic way, the White House feared that Russia would attempt to do so, sowing doubt about the fundamental mechanisms of democracy and potentially forcing a more dangerous confrontation between Washington and Moscow.

In a state where millions of votes were miscounted, and balloting machines didn’t work, hacking could have been as simple as breaking the ballot boxes or jamming them, making votes uncountable, something that already has been proven to have happened with widespread regularity in Detroit. Either the Michigan Supreme Court is calling Congressional leaders, the FBI and CIA liars, or they are just obstructing an investigation into Michigan’s millions of miscalculated votes to push a partisan election through bogus means. There is no way to plausibly deny hacking in this past election when the CIA and FBI reported hacking had been confirmed as of July 28, 2016, three and half months before the elections began.

Russians admitted that they supported Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, and interfered with the United States elections:

As for the “we” part, Putin has repeatedly denied that Russia was interfering with the U.S. elections, although he has allowed that leaks of hacked Democratic Party emails benefited the public. (Markov, the unofficial Kremlin adviser, suggested Wednesday that Russia “may have helped” WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that published the emails, but he did not specify how he knew or what that meant.)
Putin’s denial didn’t stop Russians from having fun with the idea that their leaders just might have swung the election of the leader of the free world.

“It turns out that the United Russia has won the elections in the United States!” Russian media quoted Viktor Nazarov, governor of the Omsk region, as telling a meeting.

“Judging by the hysterics in West, Vladimir Putin has won the U.S. elections,” pro-Kremlin satirist Mikhail Zadornov said on Twitter, where the Russian-language hashtag “RussiachoosesTrump” was gaining traction.

In a poll  on the Echo of Moscow, the radio station asked its listeners, “Did Putin have a hand in Trump’s victory?” While 60 percent answered no on Wednesday night, 32 percent, nearly 6,000 people, responded “yes.”

Russian media reported that “United Russia” won the U.S. elections, and still the Michigan Supreme Court declares no knowledge of hacking? Not buying it. Those media reports were published on November 2, 2016, well before last Friday’s ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court to obstruct investigations into election tampering.

The next question, whether or not Russian media can be trusted, can be evaluated by looking at what it allows to be published. In a country that censors its press before any publication takes place, there is no such thing as an “accidental leak,” or an accidental media commentary about something like “Vladimir Putin has won the US elections.” For example, before anything is published, Russian censors approve the content, meaning that those Twitter comments had definitely been approved. Here is how a Russian journalist describes publishing in Russia:

… a media environment that Freedom House ranks as “not free” and Reporters Without Borders describes as a “stifling atmosphere for independent journalists.”

recent survey of Russian journalists published on the website OpenDemocracy found that 72 percent of respondents “had encountered instances of censorship in their work.” In July, journalists of the news outlet RBC were told by new management that they needed to observe in their coverage an unseen “solid double line” they should never cross.

Russian media critics, it must be said, heap huge portions of doubt over whether anyone funded by the state can publish freely.

“You cannot work for a state-owned publication and have an independent line,” said Tatyana Malkina, a veteran Russian journalist.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: