Thread by @jennycohn1

Here’s something I don’t understand about the DETER ACT: the word IF (if Putin interferes again, there will be harsh sanctions). By making the sanctions s conditional, it implies that Putin isn’t already interfering when we’ve already been told that he is. 1/

So are we implying that the interference has to be something more than what’s happened already? 2/

I’m not against the Act, just kind of perplexed by it. I like to hash these things out, ideally publicly. Some people don’t. So I remain perplexed. 3/

Please feel free to help me out with this, ideally without telling me that my questions make me the equivalent of a Russian troll. Thanks. 4/

PS. I’m even tentatively in favor of the Act. Just not ready to break out the pom poms. 5/

And what if we get that BS we hear now that there’s “no evidence they changed vote tallies.”? Do we get to know THIS time what, if anything, was done to look for such evidence? 6/

And didn’t a lot of our information this time come from Reality Winner? What if there is no Reality Winner in 2018 and we need one? Why are we trusting agencies w/ this power when they already failed us before? 7/

I’m also uncomfortable that the Act would have a determination made about Russian interference when our govt wasn’t exactly forthcoming about it the last time and we still don’t know if they did a damn thing to determine if actual votes were altered in 2016. 8/

Please feel free to explain to me why that concern is unfounded. 9/

I’m also concerned that a “clean bill of health” under the Act re: Russian interference will deflect from the potential that corrupt insiders can easily screw with the voter registration systems and voting machines as well. 10/

And I can’t help but see this in the context of Trump’s recent assertion that Putin will rig the election 4 Democrats. I just don’t know that we have a transparent enough system to task Trump’s administration—even the good guys—w/ reaching conclusions re: vote tampering etc. 11/

If DETER required independent forensic audits of the election equipment or risk limiting audits to allow an informed conclusion about vote tampering then I’d be all over it. 12/

I worry the Democrats are screwing themselves yet again with an Act that implies we have a system that allows us to know if vote tallies were altered when they should instead be SCREAMING that we don’t have such a system. 13/

I guess if attempted interference is enough under the ACT to impose heavy sanctions, then our inability to know if the attempt succeeded isn’t as much of a problem when it comes to the Act. I’m going to look at this in more detail next week. Pls let me know ur thoughts. Thx! 14/

15/ And I guess I worry about any measure that helps foster an illusion of security because that is the type of thing (requiring paper trails without requiring audits being another example) that makes it almost impossible to challenge suspicious election outcomes or get anyone ..

16/ to understand the severity of the problem with our election system. I’d almost rather have all the Democratic Senators scream on the senate floor about what SHOULD be done—passing the #PAVEAct—than have them politely reach an unacceptable compromise behind closed doors

17/ that will make it that much harder to explain later on that there really is no way to know if our election outcomes are legitimate and that counties have no business certifying them. If there are more suspicious election outcomes, we need an educated populace—lawyers, media

18/ etc—to challenge them successfully. And we need a record that the Democrats en masse actually DEMANDED what should be done (the #PAVEAct) and that the GOP is what stood in the way. It’s hard to challenge election outcomes based on what u didn’t get if u didn’t ask for it.