It also prevents voter fraud happening in one area affecting the entire election because it limits the damage done by voter fraud.
That's completely wrong.
Significant voter fraud isn't happening now, and under a popular vote system it would be LESS effective, not more.
Right now fraud (or suppression, which actually does happen) is more tempting because all you need to do is flip a state to flip an election. You could win an election with a few thousand fraudulent/suppressed votes. The 2000 election is a perfect example where disenfranchising felons (and catching a lot of innocent black people in the process) probably won Bush the election.
In a popular vote system you would need millions of fake/suppressed votes to swing the election, malfeasance becomes a far less feasible strategy.
It's the last check against massive voter fraud. The colluding states should be fined for every day they have those laws on the books as they're trying to get around the US Constitution instead of pushing for an amendment like they're supposed to do.
You mean the massive voter fraud that doesn't actually exist?
I'd be far more concerned about widespread voter suppression efforts, voter suppression that becomes more tempting since when applied to key swing states suppressing a few thousand voters might determine the presidency.
1) Trump is a left-of-center conservative who until recently was actually a Democrat. He's not Hitler. He's not going to eat your babies or throw you out of the country because your grandmother was Mexican.
Outside of his core platforms his ideology is ill-defined and not traditional left/right. On non-core issues he might be a moderate, or he might give Paul Ryan and Mike Pence a blank cheque. There's not a lot of evidence that he cares about or even understands much about policy. An advisor could probably take him whatever direction he wants with a short presentation.
2) Trump is a sane human being who has no intention of starting any wars or launching any nukes.
Sane perhaps, stable? No. The guy who wrote "The Art of the Deal" said that he had to listen in on Trump's phone calls because his attention span was too short for Trump to do an interview. Roger Ailes abandoned the campaign because Trump's focus during debate prep was so bad. He repeatedly went on self-destructive multi-day tirades during the campaign. His own campaign didn't trust him with his Twitter account in the closing days of the campaign.
Even Glenn Beck called him unhinged, Glenn Beck.
3) Trump may be inexperienced as a political leader but he's also smart enough to delegate to people who do have experience.
Dubious, he surrounds himself with sycophants, even if they give good advice it will be tough for them to stick around if they actually contradict him.
4) Canada has its own problems. They just elected their own dumb himbo as leader and their economy isn't exactly booming. They also are trying to enact some pretty repressive anti-free-speech laws and continue to be plagued by division between French separatists in Quebec and the English in the rest of the country. Paradise it ain't. If you go there, you're probably in for some harsh awakenings.
I live there, it's not perfect but it's pretty damn nice. Trudeau presents like a lightweight but he hasn't really done anything dumb policy-wise, I think he just presents less Bro-ish than the typical politician. The Quebec separatism is really a thing of the past and the hate-speech laws tend to be more smoke than fire.
And other than the occasional Rob Ford our politicians tend to be decidedly competent and sane. A lot of us wouldn't even dream of moving to the US and your gong-show of a political system is a big reason why.
Seriously, just focus on the wall. Forget all of the other terrible ideas that you might be able to follow through on and instead spend the next 4 years working on a continent wide boondoggle and pray that the US has come to its senses by then.
Don't count on impeachment to keep Trump in check, the house is so gerrymandered that the Democrats would need huge majorities to take control, and the election campaign caused the Republicans to throw out their final pretence of responsible government. Out biggest hope is that Trump's utter incompetence prevents him from actually breaking anything and nothing of significance in the world happens that requires leadership beyond that of a 70 year old toddler surrounded by enabling sycophants.
Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup....
Sending and receiving classified documents on unsecured computers is not a "screwup", it is an illegal act. The Secretary of State cannot use the excuse of "I didn't know it was classified", in the same manner that a police officer cannot use the excuse "I didn't know stealing was a crime".
A claim that falls apart when you realize that a) there's nothing legally significant about using a private server at home, and every other person in the transaction would be just as guilty as Clinton, b) a cursory understanding of large organizations would reveal that these kinds of things are absolutely common place.
You don't suppose President Trump is going to try throwing Republican politicians in jail once it comes out that they've transmitted classified stuff over email?
I've heard that Hillary was the most personally disliked candidate, even among her strong supporters, since Richard Nixon. Of course, if she were elected and turned out to be literally as bad as Nixon, Tim Kaine or Paul Ryan would have made a better president than Trump.
If you immediately thought "Ryan is just as bad as Trump!," thanks for helping get Trump elected.
You're thinking of Ted Cruz.
Hillary's likeability has two very interesting features. First she's been a lot more popular when doing the job than when campaigning for the job, and two, she's extremely popular among people who have actually worked with her.
Dear DNC and superdelegates: Thanks so much for giving us the most unpopular Democratic nominee in living memory. What should have been a landslide win has become a complete fucking nightmare. Good job.
Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup that had zero actual consequence into the biggest campaign scandal in decades and turning an otherwise likeable candidate into a pariah.
Dear Director of the FBI: Thank you for possibly breaking the law by dropping an election bombshell and tanking Clinton's poll numbers over absolutely nothing.
Dear GOP: Thank you for you massive voter suppression efforts and the SCOTUS for enabling them. Together you were able to obstruct the ability of minorities to vote.
Dear Wikileaks: Way to go! You just handed a global superpower to a comically corrupt bozo who is so non-transparent he didn't even release his taxes!!
I voted for Trump, and I hate getting these calls as much as anyone. But disrupting election efforts like this is morally wrong. It's unfair to the party that's getting attacked, and it's an attack against having a free and fair election.
Why?
In the closing days of the election his own campaign didn't even trust him with a Twitter account.
What possessed you to think he should be President????
We were so much better off when all of our fake stories were carefully handcrafted by the propaganda wing of the Democrat party (CNN, MSN, CBS, FNC, etc.).
Do sources on the left, even including the media, sometimes spread misleading information? Of course.
But when it comes to absolute BS, flat out unambiguous lies, the right is far worse, both in traditional and social media.
That still doesn't explain why the FBI boasted that they had 400+ agents working for many months for 33,000 emails and yet magically can go through 650k in just a few days. Either they were lying before, or they are lying now.
There's a third explanation. You don't understand how computers and basic problem solving works.
The 400+ agent review involved someone personally reading and evaluating every email.
The 650k email review involved extracting the small subset of email to/from Clinton, extracting the even smaller subset of emails not in their previous already-reviewed sample, and then reviewing those.
That may have been as simple as going through a few hundred personal emails that weren't part of the initial dump.
Seriously, anyone who's ever had to do de-duplication or pattern matching or anything like that could have told you how easy this is to do. It's almost like computers are good for this kind of stuff!
This implies that a lot of Clinton-haters on/. don't understand how computers work because they bought Trump's line completely.
It's almost like when a political opponent is involved, they're willing to ignore clear and obvious explanations in favour of conspiracy theories.
The USCs involved DO NOT have intent as a qualifier anywhere in them. They are strictly "yes you did" or "no you did not" mishandle classified information. Go read the USC so you don't have to speak from ignorance. FWIW, the whole argument against Comey from Gowdy is exactly that fact. Nowhere else is intent measured in determining whether or not the law was broken.
In real life intent is always a factor when charges are considered.
If Intent was considered, Snowden would not have had to flee the US and Manning would not be in jail. They leaked because Whistle blower laws were NOT working. So how about we petition the US Government to drop all charges against Snowden and allow him to return with full honors?
WTF? Whether you want Snowden and Manning thrown in jail or given a medal one thing should be very easy to agree on. They intended to share classified information with unauthorized people!!
Clinton's "I did it because it was easy" claims (and if you believe that as opposed to avoiding FOIA, I have some swamp land to sell you.)
Or Clinton was a 60 year old woman who didn't really understand computers and decided that since every every one else at the State Dept seemed to use personal email for business she might as well just do that full time.
But a conspiracy theory makes for much better attack ads.
1) Classified emails weren't ever supposed to be sent over anything but the system explicitly for classified intelligence. Should she have realized people would screw up? Sure, but people make mistakes. She shouldn't be thrown in jail anymore than the senders of those emails.
2) If she didn't know the information was classified then she wasn't knowingly sharing it with an unauthorized person.
There is a poll here on slashdot right now that shows that the readers are hardcore liberals.
First of all, the poll doesn't mean shit. You get a much better idea of the composition of slashdot readers by actually reading their comments - and looking at the articles that make the front page.
I don't think you can extrapolate to all readers from the commenters, but I do agree that there is a very vocal alt-right subgroup who has been taking over the comments.
Second, hardcore liberals are nearly universally disappointed with Hillary. Hardcore liberals either supported Bernie and will hold their nose while voting for Hillary, or are supporting Jill Stein. There is nothing hardcore liberal about Hillary.
I'd disagree with this. Bernie's core constituency was millennials more than liberals, or people who think the current system is completely broken and needs to be rebuilt. I'd consider myself a fairly hardcore liberal and I'm pretty enthusiastic about Clinton. My fundamental disagreement with Sanders is I think you should move incrementally, and Clinton agrees with that.
They only were "retroactively" classified because she hadn't bothered at the time. She was a classifying agent as SoS. If she didn't know she was supposed to do that she was either criminal, lazy, or stupid. Pick one or more for the correct answer.
Wouldn't the person who wrote down the classified information into an email (instead of the special system for transmitting classified information) be the one who was "criminal, lazy, or stupid"?
Official State Department email addresses aren't supposed to be used for classified information. It doesn't make sense that she's the "classifying agent", by the time it hit her inbox it was already too late.
She's getting off on this one in a place where many others were convicted.
Like the people emailing her classified information over insecure email?
For instance, Petraeus didn't have classification marks in his personal journal, yet the contents were classified as all hell. The person he shared them with had a TS clearance, but had no need-to-know for the information. In this case, Clinton shared the information with someone with neither clearance nor need to know.
Understand what you are talking about before commenting.
The important part is that Petraeus knew the information he was sharing was highly classified and that the person he was sharing it with wasn't authorized to know it.
The Clinton emails were both sent over an unclassified channel (State Dept email or not) and not clearly marked as classified, there's no reason to expect that Clinton would realize they were classified.
Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.
The funny thing is that it shouldn't matter who the source is as long as the information disclosed is true.
The purpose of this disclosure isn't to expose corruption or educate the public, it's to swing an election.
That is not supposed to be Wikileaks' purpose, and it is why Assange is rightly being criticized.
It appears to be true, as not even those who should face jail time over it deny it. If you can't attack the message, attack the messager. And the american public is stupid enough to get so easily distracted. Look, a three-headed monkey !
The fact that something was leaked doesn't actually mean it exposed wrongdoing.
Anyone that cares to spend a little time searching can probably find similar stories from nearly any state. Oh, and of course the Project Veritas Action videos show people discussing the mechanics of successful fraud, clearly from a position of personal knowledge.
Keep in mind that a lot of this fraud is very hard to prove. In nearly every story, the people involved protest their innocence. Bank robbers caught in the act tend to do that too, of course, as do innocent people. A year from now, we'll know the extent of the fraud that was caught and prosecuted, and maybe have an idea of the fraud that was caught, but not prosecuted, and absolutely no idea how much fraud was not caught.
This happens every election cycle. Republicans claim they've found absolute proof of countless cases of voter fraud and the right wing media starts freaking out that the election was stolen!
Then authorities investigate, and they find a bunch of administrative errors and no actual cases of ineligible people voting or voter impersonation, although sometimes a permanent resident will get confused while filling out paper work and end up registering to vote as well.
Of course the right wing media doesn't actually follow up to let the audience know it was just a big misunderstanding, so the audience just goes on believing it was proven that the election was stolen.
And a mentally ill guy from Britain has to do with what?
There were also fake pedophile smears against Julian (Todd & Claire) as well as Trump (Epstein has way more ties to Bill, and Podesta has a ton of pedo friends apparently, including the former Republican speaker/convicted child molester so one really wonders what *they* have in common...) with that lawsuit now being voluntarily dismissed after being debunked even by Jezebel, Popehat and many other sources.
Well we don't actually know the accusations against Trump were fake, they were damn sketchy but that doesn't mean they were fake.
Slashdot Mirror
It also prevents voter fraud happening in one area affecting the entire election because it limits the damage done by voter fraud.
That's completely wrong.
Significant voter fraud isn't happening now, and under a popular vote system it would be LESS effective, not more.
Right now fraud (or suppression, which actually does happen) is more tempting because all you need to do is flip a state to flip an election. You could win an election with a few thousand fraudulent/suppressed votes. The 2000 election is a perfect example where disenfranchising felons (and catching a lot of innocent black people in the process) probably won Bush the election.
In a popular vote system you would need millions of fake/suppressed votes to swing the election, malfeasance becomes a far less feasible strategy.
It's the last check against massive voter fraud. The colluding states should be fined for every day they have those laws on the books as they're trying to get around the US Constitution instead of pushing for an amendment like they're supposed to do.
You mean the massive voter fraud that doesn't actually exist?
I'd be far more concerned about widespread voter suppression efforts, voter suppression that becomes more tempting since when applied to key swing states suppressing a few thousand voters might determine the presidency.
1) Trump is a left-of-center conservative who until recently was actually a Democrat. He's not Hitler. He's not going to eat your babies or throw you out of the country because your grandmother was Mexican.
Outside of his core platforms his ideology is ill-defined and not traditional left/right. On non-core issues he might be a moderate, or he might give Paul Ryan and Mike Pence a blank cheque. There's not a lot of evidence that he cares about or even understands much about policy. An advisor could probably take him whatever direction he wants with a short presentation.
2) Trump is a sane human being who has no intention of starting any wars or launching any nukes.
Sane perhaps, stable? No. The guy who wrote "The Art of the Deal" said that he had to listen in on Trump's phone calls because his attention span was too short for Trump to do an interview. Roger Ailes abandoned the campaign because Trump's focus during debate prep was so bad. He repeatedly went on self-destructive multi-day tirades during the campaign. His own campaign didn't trust him with his Twitter account in the closing days of the campaign.
Even Glenn Beck called him unhinged, Glenn Beck.
3) Trump may be inexperienced as a political leader but he's also smart enough to delegate to people who do have experience.
Dubious, he surrounds himself with sycophants, even if they give good advice it will be tough for them to stick around if they actually contradict him.
4) Canada has its own problems. They just elected their own dumb himbo as leader and their economy isn't exactly booming. They also are trying to enact some pretty repressive anti-free-speech laws and continue to be plagued by division between French separatists in Quebec and the English in the rest of the country. Paradise it ain't. If you go there, you're probably in for some harsh awakenings.
I live there, it's not perfect but it's pretty damn nice. Trudeau presents like a lightweight but he hasn't really done anything dumb policy-wise, I think he just presents less Bro-ish than the typical politician. The Quebec separatism is really a thing of the past and the hate-speech laws tend to be more smoke than fire.
And other than the occasional Rob Ford our politicians tend to be decidedly competent and sane. A lot of us wouldn't even dream of moving to the US and your gong-show of a political system is a big reason why.
Seriously, just focus on the wall. Forget all of the other terrible ideas that you might be able to follow through on and instead spend the next 4 years working on a continent wide boondoggle and pray that the US has come to its senses by then.
Don't count on impeachment to keep Trump in check, the house is so gerrymandered that the Democrats would need huge majorities to take control, and the election campaign caused the Republicans to throw out their final pretence of responsible government. Out biggest hope is that Trump's utter incompetence prevents him from actually breaking anything and nothing of significance in the world happens that requires leadership beyond that of a 70 year old toddler surrounded by enabling sycophants.
Just one thing:
Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup ....
Sending and receiving classified documents on unsecured computers is not a "screwup", it is an illegal act. The Secretary of State cannot use the excuse of "I didn't know it was classified", in the same manner that a police officer cannot use the excuse "I didn't know stealing was a crime".
A claim that falls apart when you realize that a) there's nothing legally significant about using a private server at home, and every other person in the transaction would be just as guilty as Clinton, b) a cursory understanding of large organizations would reveal that these kinds of things are absolutely common place.
You don't suppose President Trump is going to try throwing Republican politicians in jail once it comes out that they've transmitted classified stuff over email?
otherwise likeable candidate
I've heard that Hillary was the most personally disliked candidate, even among her strong supporters, since Richard Nixon. Of course, if she were elected and turned out to be literally as bad as Nixon, Tim Kaine or Paul Ryan would have made a better president than Trump.
If you immediately thought "Ryan is just as bad as Trump!," thanks for helping get Trump elected.
You're thinking of Ted Cruz.
Hillary's likeability has two very interesting features. First she's been a lot more popular when doing the job than when campaigning for the job, and two, she's extremely popular among people who have actually worked with her.
Dear DNC and superdelegates: Thanks so much for giving us the most unpopular Democratic nominee in living memory. What should have been a landslide win has become a complete fucking nightmare. Good job.
Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup that had zero actual consequence into the biggest campaign scandal in decades and turning an otherwise likeable candidate into a pariah.
Dear Director of the FBI: Thank you for possibly breaking the law by dropping an election bombshell and tanking Clinton's poll numbers over absolutely nothing.
Dear GOP: Thank you for you massive voter suppression efforts and the SCOTUS for enabling them. Together you were able to obstruct the ability of minorities to vote.
Dear Wikileaks: Way to go! You just handed a global superpower to a comically corrupt bozo who is so non-transparent he didn't even release his taxes!!
I voted for Trump, and I hate getting these calls as much as anyone. But disrupting election efforts like this is morally wrong. It's unfair to the party that's getting attacked, and it's an attack against having a free and fair election.
Why?
In the closing days of the election his own campaign didn't even trust him with a Twitter account.
What possessed you to think he should be President????
But only 5 minutes before passengers get impatient and complain they're not there already.
We were so much better off when all of our fake stories were carefully handcrafted by the propaganda wing of the Democrat party (CNN, MSN, CBS, FNC, etc.).
Do sources on the left, even including the media, sometimes spread misleading information? Of course.
But when it comes to absolute BS, flat out unambiguous lies, the right is far worse, both in traditional and social media.
Does Facebook get to criticize Obama for telling illegal aliens that they can become citizens by going out and voting illegally?
Fitting that you respond to an article about fake news stories with a post about a fake news story.
(and if you're referring to that FOX News clip of an interview Obama did then have a second look, the interview clip is obviously edited)
That still doesn't explain why the FBI boasted that they had 400+ agents working for many months for 33,000 emails and yet magically can go through 650k in just a few days. Either they were lying before, or they are lying now.
There's a third explanation. You don't understand how computers and basic problem solving works.
The 400+ agent review involved someone personally reading and evaluating every email.
The 650k email review involved extracting the small subset of email to/from Clinton, extracting the even smaller subset of emails not in their previous already-reviewed sample, and then reviewing those.
That may have been as simple as going through a few hundred personal emails that weren't part of the initial dump.
Seriously, anyone who's ever had to do de-duplication or pattern matching or anything like that could have told you how easy this is to do. It's almost like computers are good for this kind of stuff!
This implies that a lot of Clinton-haters on /. don't understand how computers work because they bought Trump's line completely.
It's almost like when a political opponent is involved, they're willing to ignore clear and obvious explanations in favour of conspiracy theories.
Everyone told me Comey was irresponsible and wasn't worth listening to last week. Why should we care what he says now?
He was extremely irresponsible and may have even broke the law (not that anyone on the right would be concerned about that).
This is a bit of a too-little too-late attempt to fix his screw up.
That's pretty damn impressive.
Almost like the agents had computers with text comparison tools.
The USCs involved DO NOT have intent as a qualifier anywhere in them. They are strictly "yes you did" or "no you did not" mishandle classified information. Go read the USC so you don't have to speak from ignorance. FWIW, the whole argument against Comey from Gowdy is exactly that fact. Nowhere else is intent measured in determining whether or not the law was broken.
In real life intent is always a factor when charges are considered.
If Intent was considered, Snowden would not have had to flee the US and Manning would not be in jail. They leaked because Whistle blower laws were NOT working. So how about we petition the US Government to drop all charges against Snowden and allow him to return with full honors?
WTF? Whether you want Snowden and Manning thrown in jail or given a medal one thing should be very easy to agree on. They intended to share classified information with unauthorized people!!
Clinton's "I did it because it was easy" claims (and if you believe that as opposed to avoiding FOIA, I have some swamp land to sell you.)
Or Clinton was a 60 year old woman who didn't really understand computers and decided that since every every one else at the State Dept seemed to use personal email for business she might as well just do that full time.
But a conspiracy theory makes for much better attack ads.
1) Classified emails weren't ever supposed to be sent over anything but the system explicitly for classified intelligence. Should she have realized people would screw up? Sure, but people make mistakes. She shouldn't be thrown in jail anymore than the senders of those emails.
2) If she didn't know the information was classified then she wasn't knowingly sharing it with an unauthorized person.
I'm familiar with all of those cases, and they all contain one, if not two, critical elements that Clinton's lacks.
1) They all knew the information was classified when they mishandled it.
2) In most of the cases they shared either that information with someone they knew to be unauthorized, or looked like they were going to.
There is a poll here on slashdot right now that shows that the readers are hardcore liberals.
First of all, the poll doesn't mean shit. You get a much better idea of the composition of slashdot readers by actually reading their comments - and looking at the articles that make the front page.
I don't think you can extrapolate to all readers from the commenters, but I do agree that there is a very vocal alt-right subgroup who has been taking over the comments.
Second, hardcore liberals are nearly universally disappointed with Hillary. Hardcore liberals either supported Bernie and will hold their nose while voting for Hillary, or are supporting Jill Stein. There is nothing hardcore liberal about Hillary.
I'd disagree with this. Bernie's core constituency was millennials more than liberals, or people who think the current system is completely broken and needs to be rebuilt. I'd consider myself a fairly hardcore liberal and I'm pretty enthusiastic about Clinton. My fundamental disagreement with Sanders is I think you should move incrementally, and Clinton agrees with that.
They only were "retroactively" classified because she hadn't bothered at the time. She was a classifying agent as SoS. If she didn't know she was supposed to do that she was either criminal, lazy, or stupid. Pick one or more for the correct answer.
Wouldn't the person who wrote down the classified information into an email (instead of the special system for transmitting classified information) be the one who was "criminal, lazy, or stupid"?
Official State Department email addresses aren't supposed to be used for classified information. It doesn't make sense that she's the "classifying agent", by the time it hit her inbox it was already too late.
She's getting off on this one in a place where many others were convicted.
Like the people emailing her classified information over insecure email?
For instance, Petraeus didn't have classification marks in his personal journal, yet the contents were classified as all hell. The person he shared them with had a TS clearance, but had no need-to-know for the information. In this case, Clinton shared the information with someone with neither clearance nor need to know.
Understand what you are talking about before commenting.
The important part is that Petraeus knew the information he was sharing was highly classified and that the person he was sharing it with wasn't authorized to know it.
The Clinton emails were both sent over an unclassified channel (State Dept email or not) and not clearly marked as classified, there's no reason to expect that Clinton would realize they were classified.
Understand what you are talking about indeed.
The purpose of this disclosure isn't to expose corruption or educate the public, it's to swing an election.
So you are also not doubting that what was revealed was true?
Conspiracy to commit fraud, possibly treason?
I think the content of the emails was probably true, but it shows neither fraud nor treason.
That the FBI re-opened an investigation, a highly unusual procedure, doesn't stir you as "omg, there's something wrong there"?
And then they realized the new evidence wasn't new after all and re-closed the case, but I expect you'll just write that off as a conspiracy theory.
Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.
The funny thing is that it shouldn't matter who the source is as long as the information disclosed is true.
The purpose of this disclosure isn't to expose corruption or educate the public, it's to swing an election.
That is not supposed to be Wikileaks' purpose, and it is why Assange is rightly being criticized.
It appears to be true, as not even those who should face jail time over it deny it. If you can't attack the message, attack the messager. And the american public is stupid enough to get so easily distracted. Look, a three-headed monkey !
The fact that something was leaked doesn't actually mean it exposed wrongdoing.
Anyone that cares to spend a little time searching can probably find similar stories from nearly any state. Oh, and of course the Project Veritas Action videos show people discussing the mechanics of successful fraud, clearly from a position of personal knowledge.
Keep in mind that a lot of this fraud is very hard to prove. In nearly every story, the people involved protest their innocence. Bank robbers caught in the act tend to do that too, of course, as do innocent people. A year from now, we'll know the extent of the fraud that was caught and prosecuted, and maybe have an idea of the fraud that was caught, but not prosecuted, and absolutely no idea how much fraud was not caught.
This happens every election cycle. Republicans claim they've found absolute proof of countless cases of voter fraud and the right wing media starts freaking out that the election was stolen!
Then authorities investigate, and they find a bunch of administrative errors and no actual cases of ineligible people voting or voter impersonation, although sometimes a permanent resident will get confused while filling out paper work and end up registering to vote as well.
Of course the right wing media doesn't actually follow up to let the audience know it was just a big misunderstanding, so the audience just goes on believing it was proven that the election was stolen.
You might want to check the Project Veritas video
James O'Keefe's is famous precisely for making videos dishonestly edited and presented to create fake scandals.
I'll watch his video on a scandal after I finish reviewing Bernie Madoff's report on my mutual funds.
And there was also this guy who attempted to steal a gun: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/19/...
And a mentally ill guy from Britain has to do with what?
There were also fake pedophile smears against Julian (Todd & Claire) as well as Trump (Epstein has way more ties to Bill, and Podesta has a ton of pedo friends apparently, including the former Republican speaker/convicted child molester so one really wonders what *they* have in common...) with that lawsuit now being voluntarily dismissed after being debunked even by Jezebel, Popehat and many other sources.
Well we don't actually know the accusations against Trump were fake, they were damn sketchy but that doesn't mean they were fake.