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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with ✍🏻 📢 ✍🏻 📢 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jennycohn1

Jan 13, 2019
Study shows that people of all political persuasions are willing to modify their beliefs based on corrective info from reliable sources, but “subjects ‘re-believed’ the false info when retested a week later.” 1/…
2/ The author of the article says It may help to warn people in advance that they are likely to forget the correction bc “this helps them mentally tag the bogus information as false.”
3/ It’s also “important that the corrective information be repeated as frequently, and with even greater clarity, than the myth.”
Read 6 tweets
Oct 9, 2018
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but elections have been electronically suspect starting long before the Trump/Russia scandal. This article is lulling folks into a false sense of security, which is dangerous. Domestic hackers & insiders were always an equal threat. 1/
Read 11 tweets
Oct 9, 2018
I agree, tho not enuf time (and 0 political will) to do this in Nov. Wish it were different. For now I hope to stop states from doubling up on electronics w/ touchscreen ballot markers. Using electronics to count votes is bad enuf. Having them mark our ballots too is nuts. 1/
Nuts except for those who are unable to hand mark their ballots. Once you have hand marked paper ballots they can be either scanned or hand counted (my preference) or both. 2/
Any time u put a machine between the voter and the paper record of voter intent there is an opportunity for programming mischief. Here is just the latest example.: 3/
Read 8 tweets
Oct 8, 2018
I’m hoping some of the cyber experts who signed the letter about the risks of using cellular modems to transfer election results can answer this question. Thx! @philipbstark @SEGreenhalgh @rad_atl @jhalderm
P. 79 describes the modem…
Seeing as no one has answered yet, I will say that even if the cellular modems CAN be configured to bypass the internet, we should not have to blindly trust that vendors or whoever else is hired to set them up will do that. 1/
Read 4 tweets
Oct 8, 2018
Kathy Rogers, the face & voice of @ESSVote, which has installed CELLULAR MODEMS in tabulators in WI & FL, is cozying up to @DHSgov which refuses to advise states to remove the modems despite a letter from 30 cyber experts & EI groups stating it should do so. #CorruptElections 1/
Here’s the letter.… 2/
Read 16 tweets
Oct 8, 2018
The notion that cellular modems affect only “unofficial” results is bogus bc, among other reasons, in certain jurisdictions, unofficial results become the official results once added to absentees & provisionals—sometimes w/o ever comparing them to the precinct results tapes! 1/
And Wisconsin doesn’t even require that counties publicly post the results tapes so that the public itself can make this comparison! (I don’t know about Florida, Michigan, & Illinois.) 2/
Thus, we must simply trust that someone trustworthy is conducting this due diligence. In Johnson County, Kansas, the County acknowledged that it does NOT conduct this basic due diligence. 3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!