Home | About | Donate

New From Trump University: Election Rigging 101


New From Trump University: Election Rigging 101

William deBuys

Donald Trump was right. The election was rigged. What Trump got wrong (and, boy, does he get things wrong) is that the rigging worked in his favor. The manipulations took three monumental forms: Russian cyber-sabotage; FBI meddling; and systematic Republican efforts, especially in swing states, to prevent minority citizens from casting votes. The cumulative effect was more than sufficient to shift the outcome in Trump’s favor and put the least qualified major-party candidate in the history of the republic into the White House.


The article is good, but it should include Greg Palast's reporting that 75,000 votes from minority neighborhoods in Michigan, as well as a fair number in Wisconsin, were counted as blank for Presidential candidates on old voting machines. During the recount, republican election officials put the same ballots into the same machines, but didn't let anyone look at them. I don't understand why there isn't a movement to demand that these votes be hand counted. I don't trust that Trump won these states. Until these ballots are hand counted, I will believe that a coup took place.


Part of the problem is that no one in government is ever held accountable and that lays the blame at the feet of our presidents, congressional lawmakers and supremes. Banksters are not held accountable, the likes the Florida governor was not held accountable for stealing from Medicare nor anyone else who stoled from medicare.

It seems that bilking the public coffers (taxes) is okay if a politicians or a friend of a politicians. Think about Blackwater Eric Prince brother of Devos.

If you have enough money you can do whatever and you budget for fines.

Enough already but been saying that for a few decades.


i have trouble with several aspects of this article including the main hypothesis that "Russian hacking" swung the election in favor of Trump.
First of all anything that the "hack" provided, such as undermining the Sanders campaign or accepting massive sums of money from special interest groups was pretty much common knowledge for anyone who pays attention. This is why the majority of Americans didn't trust Clinton even before the alleged interference by "Russian hackers".
Secondly, mainstream media did more to support Trump than any other facet of American influence over the voting population. Rather than introducing the public to fresh ideas or initiating open debates about key issues concerning the majority of Americans like minimum wage hikes, universal healthcare, free college tuition, a universal basic income or the mass incarceration of the people of color, the media instead chose to give an inexperienced, bankrupt, reality TV Star all of their airtime. The fact that most Americans don't trust the MSM, the media's tacit support for Clinton would be automatically rejected by most Americans as being part of a 'liberal media bias'. The same works in reverse; media capitalizing on Trump's endless stream of faux pas only brightened Trump's appeal to the electorate.
The only way the media could have provided a real service to the American electorate, was to endlessly debate key policies that any and all presidential candidates proposed rather than repeat ad naseum the empty political rhetoric that both candidates served up... particularly HRC! Instead the public was corralled into a familiar political dilemma that has been ongoing for generations; that everyone had to choose between only two despicable candidates.


This article seeks to divert attention from the fact that the Democratic Party leadership chose Hillary Clinton as their candidate long before the primary season started and did everything short of bloodletting to ensure her nomination. They went on to run a bad campaign around an already tarnished candidate. They had a better choice and refused to change course. Their short-sightedness cost them the election and now it's time to lay blame elsewhere. These tactics only worked because Clinton was so disliked to begin with.

I will never forget the lies the US government told to the Nuclear Test Site downwinders: it's safe, nothing to worry about. Or the lies told to the First Nations over and over and still tell. How about the lie that all men are created equal or lying us into the Iraq War? JFK? I'm not buying the Intelligence report until it is independently verified. Until then it is a document generated by spooks, whose job it is to be damn good liars, and which only verifies the same spooks guesswork (based on limited information) about alleged Russian interference, and that also reinforces current aggressive policy towards Russia.

See: US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia ‚ÄėHack‚Äô, By Robert Parry
And this...

This is some serious food for thought from the great journalist and economist Michael Whitney:

The fact is I would rather Trump succeed at least a little than see Pence ascend to the throne. The problem here is Trump's deal-making generally results in bad deals for the contractors, workers and environment, and will result in the wholesale deregulation of just about everything. It still comes down to joining/building a people's movement.


T-Rump and some in his proposed cabinet may have economic ties to Russian interests, but it's unfortunate that Common Dreams chose to give space to a piece that continues to perpetuate the Deep State claims (with yet no real evidence made available) of Russian state election hacking.


The article seems to take issue with the outing of true if embarrassing information about the Clinton campaign team. So, giving voters the facts is somehow "election rigging"?

The media could have gone further, and pointed out that voters did not have to "choose between only two despicable candidates." There were 4 candidates, but the media refused to provide more than minimal coverage of 2 of them, and they dignified the "Presidential Debates" as if these were legitimate debates rather than shows put on by the Republican and Democratic parties. Every American should know that the debates are a farce. Check out the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates.


Yeah like they are going to show you their evidence anyway. Even without showing us the direct evidence they make a pretty good case which even junior high school logic can follow.


You had a choice. You could have provided some actual evidence Russian state involvement. Or some reason why we should believe intelligence officials that have repeatedly lied or made misrepresentations to the public or elected representatives, not the least of which were used as a pretense to invade and occupy Iraq.

Or, you could have attempted to rebut any of the information or opinions expressed in the articles i linked to.

But instead, you chose to engage in puerile ad hominem.

Hopefully, you aren't representative of the kind of person we'll need to resist the Trumpians.


Mixing fake news with plausible points gives the fake stuff a coating of truth that just is not there! Such a strategy misleads the public and is not appropriate under any circumstances. Unfortunately this whole article should be read with extreme caution to allow for the separation of the fake from the plausible.


As you well know there has been no proof released. When all of the
intelligence agencies and the FBI come to the same conclusion there is
probably a pretty good chance it is valid. Not to mention all of Congress,
the President and the President elect now believe the information to be
true. Almost everyone who has paid attention knows that there was nothing
the matter with the WMD intelligence gathered by the intelligence agencies
on Iraq. The problem was in the administration forcing the intelligence
agencies to cherry pick their results to fit a preconceived outcome. This
was discussed in detail last week on On Point and I was actually surprised
that it took them so long to come to such an obvious conclusion. If you
are going to make an argument against intelligence agency information with
respect to the lead up to the Iraq war at least take the time to do enough
research to get the facts. You have just been suckered into Trump's Cloud
Cocoland hook, line and sinker.


Better, but you still can't help yourself, can you?

[[ You have just been suckered into Trump's Cloud
Cocoland hook, line and sinker. ]]

Let me know if you're capable of engaging without insults or insulting assumptions.


Not only did the corporate media give tacit support to T-Rump by virtue of unchallenging coverage, they willfully crafted their coverage because he represented something that people couldn't avert their eyes from, like rubbernecking to see a bad traffic accident.

Witness immoral sewer rat and president of CBS Les Moonves, who thought the campaign was a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," but nonetheless reveled that, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."

On top of that, they (and this includes so-called public broadcasting) marginalized, misrepresented, or outright ignored the Sanders campaign from the outset all the way through the primaries.

Add in DNC corruption with hacks like Washingmachine Schultz tilting the scale to Hillary, Dembots that thought Bernie was a wild-eyed communist, and fake feminists who had to vote for Hillary because she was a woman, and well, here we are.


A common strategy of the Clinton wing has been that of writing off all those who disagree as "trolls." This arrogant contempt for those who didn't march in lockstep remains counter-productive.

Real life gets pretty basic. What people care about at the proverbial end of the day is whether they have the means to keep their families together, housed and fed. Many don't. Not everyone can work, and the US shut down and shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare aid in the 1990s. As a result of the Clinton agenda -- which Hillary Clinton played a key role in formulating -- the overall life expectancy of the US poor has fallen below that of any developed nation. People pointed out from the start why, if Clinton were selected, a Republican would be elected. Of course, they were dismissed as "trolls."

With this election, we were presented with two candidates who were deeply opposed by much of their own voting bases. Clinton won the majority of the popular vote, Trump got the Electoral College vote, and that's what we're stuck with. What matters now: What do we do about it?


Are you referring to claims that "Russia hacked the election?" At least as recently as a couple weeks ago, the CIA (again) stated that there was no evidence of Russian involvement. Russia denies it, Wikileaks denies that Russia had any involvement, and to date, there is no evidence of any interference with the election. There are accusations and conclusions, but no evidence.

Whatever actually happened has been spun to the point where nothing is clear. It appears that the DNC's email server got hacked (reportedly still unsecured, even after the 2010 hacking of their system), over 1,000 emails were accessed, and these were published somewhere via Wikileaks. Voting machines weren't hacked, and there was no smear campaign. This was an effort to shine a light on facts that voters had a right to know.

The bottom line remains that we got stuck with two candidates who were deeply opposed by much of their own voting bases. As a result, roughly half of all voters saw no choice but to vote third party or withhold their votes. In the end, Clinton won the most votes, Trump won the Electoral College, and that's what we're stuck with.


Not one mention of redistricting/Gerrymandering?


At this point no one aside from Trump die-hards and maybe Trump himself -- he has said so many contradictory things on the subject, it’s difficult to tell what he actually believes -- denies that the hackers were Russian and acted under some kind of official instruction, even possibly from the highest levels of Kremlin authority, including Russian President Vladimir Putin.

I think Trump is an arrogant, self-serving and dangerous buffoon. Easily the least fit to lead President we've ever seen.

And I'm still waiting for the proof on the supposed 'Russian hack'.


The voter suppression section is correct, but the blatantly unsupported comments on the "Russian interference" shows the warped nature of deBuys' understanding;
"The Russians and their allies, in part through WikiLeaks, parceled out the juiciest tidbits from the......."
has NO EVIDENCE, and most people with powers of observation and fairness see this. I am very disappointed in Tomdispatch for publishing this without any demurring and no comments allowed, as it is a site which is usually fair.


For the most part I agree with you. Lots of people assume hacked implies they manipulated the voting record which there is no evidence they did. Did they hack the DNC? Evidence indicates they did. Did their hacking affect the election? Of course it did and so did Wikileaks and do did theFBI. Anything that influences public opinion influences the election. You have to decide for yourself who you want influencing our elections. If you think it is okay for the Russians to hack the DNC and release the information to the voting public then okay; I don't. Not that I oppose releasing the information, just not the Russians or any other country.