Possibly, but there was already a recount in several states. Don't know if it could have that big of an impact.
I wouldn't put much stock in their editorial opinion or interpretations, but as far as the primary documents like the one provided I think they have a pretty good record. Let me know if you have an example that makes you think otherwise.It seems there are two threads about the same article so I'm gonna post this here as well:
Pro-Tip: Don't post The Intercept as a source. They are a crazy conspiracy website. The intelligence agencies that all say the Russians hacked the democrats also say there is absolutely no evidence that the Russians hacked the actual votes.
Buying into the idea that the actual votes were hacked only helps assholes like Jill Stein trick you into giving her 9 million dollars for nothing.
Yeah, I just always wait to read a few articles from different places.Intercept is more of a Russian hacking apologist website more than anything. Greenwald has been yelling there's no evidence for months. If they published it that's a good sign.
What's more is they claim to have independently verified that the NSA document is legit.
Always worth waiting for more sources of course.
I wouldn't put much stock in their editorial opinion or interpretations, but as far as the primary documents like the one provided I think they have a pretty good record. Let me know if you have an example that makes you think otherwise.
Any of it.
I just finished doing a quick look at their Wikipedia article and yeah, they seem slightly fishy. We should wait for more sources to corroborate before we jump for joy or whatever.
Also PA already stands for Public Announcement so a PA announcement is a public announcement announcement
However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.
https://twitter.com/RebeccaShabad/status/871822448660029440
.@cbsnews confirms the NSA report is real --> NSA report details Russian hacking effort days before election
Fuck.
I don't even want to think about it.
The first part was jokingly referring to people who still pretend there was no influence to getting trump.
The second part is because we know the party in power doesn't give a care about any of this and that there are hints of then benefiting from it.
I don't think i was too far off base there.
Please find that Clinton should have won. Please. Please.
It seems there are two threads about the same article so I'm gonna post this here as well:
Pro-Tip: Don't post The Intercept as a source. They are a crazy conspiracy website. The intelligence agencies that all say the Russians hacked the democrats also say there is absolutely no evidence that the Russians hacked the actual votes.
Buying into the idea that the actual votes were hacked only helps assholes like Jill Stein trick you into giving her 9 million dollars for nothing.
Sam Biddle @samfbiddle
·
12m
very very important: theres nothing in the NSA report indicating the actual voting machines or vote tabulations were compromised
^ one of the reporters on this story
Please find that Clinton should have won. Please. Please.
Please find that Clinton should have won. Please. Please.
How could any of this happen when you guys have the CIA, the NSA and God knows what more.
You see, this is what "Protecting national interests" is about, not killing someone with a drone in foreign soil.
This stinks of total incompetence.
It seems there are two threads about the same article so I'm gonna post this here as well:
Pro-Tip: Don't post The Intercept as a source. They are a crazy conspiracy website. The intelligence agencies that all say the Russians hacked the democrats also say there is absolutely no evidence that the Russians hacked the actual votes.
Buying into the idea that the actual votes were hacked only helps assholes like Jill Stein trick you into giving her 9 million dollars for nothing.
Not off base- just a bit off topic. Which is fine. I wander off topic constantly, so I'm no one to judge...
There is nothing in the Constitution that says if/when/how a redo would take place. It would have to be sent to the Supreme Court(if it even got that far) and they won't want to open that can of worms.
And if they hacked the ballots we will find out from a source that isn't the goddamned intercept.
Hillary lost. ... period.
Republicans still don't give a damn. They won.
... accurate.The Intercept is not really a conspiracy website. Its style is more: "Leaked NSA report details Russian hacking effort days before 2016 US election Reply to Thread, but don't forget that the CIA did the same thing in Latin America".
Care to back this up?
The article also never asserts that the hacking actually affected results.
The Intercept's reputation is fairly solid.
Greenwald is a big of a right tit, but most of the "oh, so sketchy" bad mouthing his site gets is because he wasn't what you'd call a Hillary cheerleader and had the audacity of asking for proof of Russian intervention when the Dem leaks came out, but they are hardly in Putin's pocket. Now that they have solid info, they are releasing it. I'd say this kind of crushes any allegations of siding with either Russia or the GOP just because they were (yes) asking questions.
Hahahahah - oh wow.
Sooooo, let's say we find out they actually hacked ballots.
What happens then?
So they very well could have fucked with ballots is what this saying?
Hahahahah - oh wow.
Sooooo, let's say we find out they actually hacked ballots.
What happens then?
Nah man, if they hacked the ballots we get a do-over
And if they hacked the ballots we will find out from a source that isn't the goddamned intercept.
Pamela Smith, president of election integrity watchdog Verified Voting, agreed that even if VR Systems doesnt facilitate the actual casting of votes, it could make an alluring target for anyone hoping to disrupt the vote.
If someone has access to a state voter database, they can take malicious action by modifying or removing information, she said. This could affect whether someone has the ability to cast a regular ballot, or be required to cast a provisional ballot which would mean it has to be checked for their eligibility before it is included in the vote, and it may mean the voter has to jump through certain hoops such as proving their information to the election official before their eligibility is affirmed.
Ok so.... now what?!