Category Archives: election subversion risk

“Pa. election conspiracy activist appointed to election integrity role at Department of Homeland Security”

election subversion risk, fraudulent fraud squad

WITF:

A Pennsylvania-based activist tied to President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election is now overseeing election security matters for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

Heather Honey, of Lebanon County, is serving as the deputy assistant secretary for elections integrity, a political appointment in the department’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, according to the department’s website. 

The office is responsible for leading, conducting and coordinating “Department-wide policy development and implementation and strategic planning,” according to its page. 

DHS did not answer questions about Honey’s responsibilities, or whether she will still be able to both work in government and hold positions in several advocacy groups that push conspiratorial election claims….

Votebeat had an earlier profile of Honey, This Pa. activist is the source of false and flawed election claims gaining traction across the country. MORE from Democracy Docket.

Share this:

Bart Gellman: “Trump’s Stunning Power Grab on Elections”

Election Assistance Commission, election subversion risk, Uncategorized

NYT oped:

To begin with, the surprise announcement and the sudden, if ambiguous, turnabout suggested once again that Mr. Trump is governing in his second term without advisers who can or even try to help him discipline his impulses. The episode exposes, as well, his renewed obsession with exerting control over election machinery. And it offers a vivid glimpse of his inclination to regard his powers as all but limitless.

No competent lawyer could have counseled Mr. Trump in good faith that “the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” as the president asserted in his post. Nor would such a lawyer have dreamed of advising him that state election officials “must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.”

Who, if anyone, told Mr. Trump that he could take command of state elections this way? Possibly he made up the authority himself. Some former Trump staff members believe he may not engage at all with questions about whether something he wants to do is lawful or something he wants to say is true. Those questions, they tell me, do not even occur to him.

Others who have worked for Mr. Trump say he seems to believe sincerely, if that is the word for it, that anything is permitted to him. Still others insist that he knows very well when he is crossing a line but presses on until obliged by an opposing force to stop.

Whatever the origins, Mr. Trump has now staked out a fundamentally illegitimate claim to authority over the conduct of American elections. He has yet to repudiate it. If he continues to press the claim, then the foundational mechanisms of our democracy may be in genuine danger. It is more than hypothetically possible that Mr. Trump, when frustrated, will try to compel the obedience of state election officials by throwing the weight of the executive branch against them.

Mr. Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington and active duty Marines in Los Angeles, accompanied by threats that he might do the same in other Democratic urban strongholds, suggests another risk. Could he use some pretext to take control of voting machinery? If he dispatches troops or federal law enforcement agents to disrupt blue-city voting or ballot counting in swing states — Atlanta, say, or Milwaukee or Philadelphia — the midterm elections could be in real peril.

With or without the deployment of force, Mr. Trump’s fusillade of baseless claims about election fraud shakes public confidence in the integrity of the vote — and provides excuses for his dishonest efforts to delegitimize the outcomes. For all his political life, he has waged war against the proposition that he or his party could ever lose a legitimate election. He and his allies are preparing the ground for their next battle, in 2026….

Bart concludes with a note very consistent with my NYT oped on this topic earlier this week:

The ultimate safeguard of constitutional government is the great mass of citizen voters who decide by the tens of millions what kind of government they want. We hold the power, whatever our partisan preferences, to defend checks and balances and the rule of law. We cannot lose that power unless we surrender it.

Share this:

Bob Bauer Sounds the Alarm: “Donald Trump’s Plan for ‘Honest’ Mid-Term Elections”

authoritarian threats in US, election administration, election subversion risk

Bob Bauer writes, very much in line with what I wrote in the NYT yesterday:

On August 18, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that he would sign another executive order, following one issued in March, to “help bring honesty” to elections and to the 2026 mid-term elections in particular. According to Trump, its aims are to end to mail-in voting and to replace voting machines in favor of “watermark paper” ballots. Trump claims the legal authority to do this because it is “good for the country.” The president has no such authority, but it appears that his plans may include exploiting a particular feature of the American electoral process. That process is entrusted to election officials and administrators selected through partisan processes, and Trump is evidently seeking to make Republican state and local official support for “honest elections” a litmus test of party loyalty….

Trump could certainly call on Republican-controlled state legislatures to pass bills that support in various ways this drive against mail-in voting and voting machines. But he has other ways to apply partisan pressure in achieving these goals. As the Presidential Commission on Election Administration noted in its 2014 Report: “The United States runs its elections unlike any other country in the world,” and one of [its] distinguishing features…is the choosing of election officials and administrators through a partisan process. Some are appointed and others elected, but almost all are selected on a partisan basis.” It is complex, decentralized system run by local officials in more than 8,000 individual jurisdictions. In the last years since the “stop the steal movement” gelled, the vast majority of these officials across the country and the political divide have held firm against pressures to follow the president in his claims about “rigged” elections.

There have been a small but notable number of exceptions. Officials declined to certify lawful vote tallies until courts intervened or sought a change in the rules to give them broad discretion to do so. In one case in Colorado, Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters arranged to give unlawful access to county voting equipment to conspiracy theorists seeking to support Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election. She was prosecuted on state law charges, convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison.

These are only a few examples of how the American system of elections is vulnerable to partisan political pressure directed by a zealously committed president. The way it can all go from here under intensifying pressure from Trump can be seen in the ongoing tale of the Colorado prosecution. Trump has denounced the prosecution of Peters as a “Communist prosecution by the Radical Left Democrats to cover up their Election crimes and misdeeds in 2020.” At Trump’s direction, the Department of Justice sought to have a state court release Peters. An administration working with its party to undermine confidence in the integrity of the mid-terms can both demand Republican official support and offer protection in return. While a president cannot issue pardons for state crimes, he can ensure that the Department of Justice takes other action to aid in applying pressure to election officials. DOJ has reportedly started going down that path, exploring the options for criminally prosecuting election officials for not meeting the administration’s expectations for computer security protocols.

In broadcasting his conclusion that “VOTING MACHINES… ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER” and that mail-in voting is a “SCAM,” the president is leaving no doubt that Republican election officials should share his view as members of the “Republican party” partnering with him in what he terms a “movement.” The President tried in his challenge to the 2020 election to have the department seize voting machinery to support his allegations of fraud, but while such an order was prepared, senior DOJ officials at the time successfully resisted. Those officials are now gone and those taking their places are far less likely to put up a fight in the Oval Office when the time comes. State and local election officials will likely now also face pressure to support in 2026 actions like the seizure of voting machines he could not achieve 6 years ago. The attacks on the 2020 election have already resulted in an extraordinary turnover of election officials who had enough of the “challenges, burnout, threats and harassment that [they have been] facing.”

It is impossible to identify every possible challenge to the process we may see in the months ahead. Federal and state courts will be called upon to respond as defenses are mounted under federal and state constitutional and statutory law. The success of any such legal defense will depend on the particular case and the forum in which it is presented. It is more certain that a well-coordinated attack would enable the president to seize at least the initial advantage, leaving the courts to catch up with severely destabilizing moves the administration may take, such as machine or ballot seizures and threats or actions to prosecute election officials who won’t get on the program.

Over the years, as well as at the present time, I have met and worked on a nonpartisan basis with election officials around the country, both Democrats and Republicans, who have been elected or appointed to discharge these responsibilities. I have never failed to be impressed with their professionalism. The vast majority from both parties—in red, blue, and purple states—do their jobs exceptionally well and without regard to partisan pressures. But it does appear that Donald Trump is preparing to subject them, and through them the system with its built-in partisan features, to severe pressure, and he will have federal law enforcement at his command for this purpose. The electoral process will be tested in unprecedented ways….

Share this:

My New One in the NY Times on How States, Courts, and the Public Can Combat the Risk Trump Poses to the 2026 Midterm Elections

authoritarian threats in US, election subversion risk

I have written this guest essay for the NY Times (free gift link). It begins:

With Republicans potentially losing their current seven-vote majority in the House in next year’s midterm elections (or, less likely, their six-vote majority in the Senate), President Trump has been sending clear signals of his intent to interfere with the fairness and integrity of those elections.

After saying in a social media post on Monday that “DEMOCRATS … CHEAT AT LEVELS NOT SEEN BEFORE,” he promised to sign a new executive order aimed at “MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD” in order “to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 midterms.” Mr. Trump also promised to “lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN ballots and also, while we’re at it, Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial Voting Machines.” He also claimed that the United States is the only country using mail-in balloting. (In fact, it is used in Canada, Britain and many other countries.) Mr. Trump’s claim that “the States are merely an ‘agent’ of the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes” is as legally wrong as it is politically dangerous. That can also be said about his plans to issue an executive order interfering with how states run their elections.

The fear that Mr. Trump will try to subvert the 2026 elections is real — after all, he tried to overturn the results of the first presidential election he didn’t win. But even if Mr. Trump fails to keep the House and the Senate in Republican hands, he will have delegitimized future Democratic victories in the eyes of his MAGA base….

For decades, I argued that the United States should join other modern democracies in having national nonpartisan administration of elections. What we have instead is a hyper-decentralized system that gives states the primary role in running elections, and states in turn give their counties the authority to conduct elections and count ballots. I had thought that the variety of voting rules, machines and personnel was inefficient and particularly dangerous in polarized times, when every local mistake becomes evidence of some claim of a stolen or botched election.

What I had not factored into my thinking was that centralizing power over elections within the federal government could be dangerous in the hands of a president not committed to democratic principles. It is among the many things I had thought about American democracy that have been overturned by the advent of Mr. Trump….

States can serve as the primary bulwark against this attempted election subversion. States are not federal “agents.” They control election systems and can assert their longstanding rights to run elections. This is no longer a red state-blue state issue: Either all states have the power to run elections, despite the president’s make-believe grievances, or none of them do. The Republican Party objected when President Joe Biden issued an executive order to federal agencies to encourage more voter registration. Mr. Trump seeks to exert far greater authority than anything Mr. Biden had in mind.

Courts are the second bulwark against presidential meddling in elections. Federal courts have already issued orders blocking parts of Mr. Trump’s earlier executive order that infringe on state sovereignty. Although courts, including the Supreme Court, have not been strong in recent years on voting rights protection — and things seem poised to get worse on Voting Rights Act enforcement after the court returns in October — so far they have amassed an admirable record in stopping attempts at election subversion. The most recent example was when Judge Richard E. Myers, a very conservative Federal District Court judge in North Carolina, blocked an attempt by a Republican candidate who tried to get North Carolina’s Supreme Court to retroactively change the rules for voter eligibility, after the election, in an attempt to turn his election loss into a win….

n the end, the American people also have a key role to play in pushing back against Mr. Trump’s meddling. People will need the courage to go vote even in American cities that may have federal agents swarming around them. “Voter protection” in recent decades has not meant protection from government-led violence and intimidation, but it may come down to that. Democrats, Republicans and other members of the public should monitor voting procedures, as allowed by state law, to make sure that state and county election officials stand up to federal pressure and do the right thing as they conduct elections and tabulate ballots. Local civic and business leaders need to back our election administrators, who may find themselves subjected to pressures to bend or break the rules. All of this organizing needs to happen now, not next November. To keep us from sliding further into autocracy, it is civil society we must make great again.

This remains true because even if Mr. Trump refrains from trying to run for an unconstitutional third term, he isn’t finished working to manipulate election results in his favor. To counter this, we will have to rely on the resilience of our commitment to democracy, which is far stronger than the rantings of a would-be strongman. Seen in this light, the diversity of our rules for running elections becomes our strength.

Share this:

No, President Trump Can’t Ban Mail in Ballots or Voting Machines, as His Truth Social Post Suggests He Might Try to Do

authoritarian threats in US, election subversion risk

This morning President Trump put out a post on Truth Social that shares some of his usual and debunked conspiracy theories about voter fraud in elections. Part of the post says that he will “lead a movement” to get rid of mail-in ballots and voting machines. Nothing wrong or illegal about that, and there can be a debate about these things.

But part of the post says that Trump is going to sign an executive order purporting to direct how the midterm elections will be run, on the theory that states are merely an “agent” of the federal government in counting and tabulating the votes. This is wrong and dangerous. TheConstitution does not give the President any control over federal elections. Federal courts have recognized this in the context of his first EO on elections issued months ago–and part put on hold through preliminary injunctions.

CONGRESS in Article I, Section 4 has the power to make or alter state rules for the conduct of congressional elections, but even this congressional power does not extend to state and local elections—witness how Arizona has different rules for voter registration and proof of citizenship applicable in states vs federal elections. CONGRESS also has the power to ensure certain equality in the conduct of elections, for example, to enforce the 15th Amendment’s guarantee against race discrimination in elections. The PRESIDENT has the power to “take care” that these laws are faithfully executed, but that is not the power to take over state elections. It does not make states agents of the federal government, much less agents of the executive branch.

I will have more to say about this, but I will say now that the danger of interference in the midterm elections is real, and this is a dangerous step in this direction. The timing may be connected to trying to distract from the debacle of the Russia-Ukraine war negotiations, but I was expecting more like this and now is the time to be prepared.

Share this:

“Midterms are more than a year away, but Trump is already challenging them | Opinion”

election subversion risk

Chris Brennan column in USA Today:

They’re building the machine now to meddle in the 2026 midterm elections 15 months from now.

And those machinations are built on two lessons learned from 2020: Attack the election with everything you have before it happens, and stock the Trump administration only with officials who will do exactly what he says on elections, no matter what the law says.

Trump’s team of election deniers, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, represent both of these lessons.

The first they learned in 2020, when they failed while trying to help Trump overturn a free and fair election. It was all so careless and chaotic back then, a dizzying series of unsubstantiated claims and discombobulated news conferences punctuated by judge after judge tossing out Trump’s challenges as meritless.

I was reminded recently of a news conference I attended at Philadelphia’s airport on the day after the 2020 election. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, then working as Trump’s lawyer doing work that eventually got him disbarred, was the ringmaster for the election deniers that day. And Bondi was right by his side….

Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at The Brennan Center for Justice, told me that Trump and his team appear to be building a “pretext” on the false claim of rampant election fraud as justification for their potential meddling in the elections. They’re systematically removing “the brakes” that protect democracy during the voting process, she said.

“They’re taking aim at all of the brakes that applied before. And they’re starting earlier,” Weiser said. “That just shows you he’s laser-focused on interfering in elections here by any means necessary. Bend the rules. Throw out the playbook.”

David Becker, a former Department of Justice lawyer who founded The Center for Election Innovation and Research, has been hosting monthly webinar meetings with hundreds of state election officials since March. Those officials – Republicans and Democrats – have plenty of questions and concerns about the “unprecedented level of federal interference in state election processes,” he told me.

“They’re not sure where all this is leading,” Becker said. “They hear the rhetoric coming out of the White House. They hear the continued false statements about past elections and election security in the United States.”

It’s worth noting here, as Weiser told me, that presidents have no role in running or overseeing elections in America, except for enforcing voting laws passed by Congress. And Becker noted that Congress, now controlled by Trump’s Republican allies, has not authorized the DOJ intrusions into state election systems.

Share this:

“What are the Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines?”

election administration, election subversion risk

New from the Bipartisan Policy Center:

he Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) are a set of principles and standards for the election equipment that Americans use to vote. These guidelines help ensure that election outcomes reflect the will of voters, a cornerstone of the democratic process.  

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) established the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The VVSG serve as the foundation for the EAC’s testing and certification program, which helps ensure that voting systems meet key requirements for usability, accessibility, and integrity.  

Here’s what you need to know about the VVSG. 

The VVSG are federal but voluntary, though many states have codified the use of VVSG in state law.

HAVA established minimum standards for all voting equipment used in federal elections, but the VVSG is a more comprehensive, modern set of standards that states can choose to adopt.  

The EAC adopted the first set of guidelines, VVSG 1.0, in 2005. The EAC adopted the latest version, VVSG 2.0, in 2021 with an emphasis on usability, accessibility, auditability, and physical and cyber security. One voting system has been certified to 2.0 and two systems are under test at the time of this publication.  

Thirty-eight states and DC use aspects of the federal testing and certification program. This means changes to the VVSG may have downstream effects on how states procure their voting equipment. Because so many states depend on the VVSG in some form, election technology vendors have “little choice but to ensure their products meet [federal] standards.” 

On March 25, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to take a broad set of actions related to election administration. Section 4(b) of the order directs the EAC to amend VVSG 2.0 by: 

  • Prohibiting the use of voting systems that encode a vote in a barcode or quick-response (QR) code “except where necessary to accommodate individuals with disabilities,” and 
  • Requiring voting systems to provide a voter-verifiable paper record. 

In June, the EAC released a draft version of VVSG 2.1 which attempts to incorporate these changes. 

The new draft VVSG 2.1 requires that barcode representations of a voter’s ballot selections “only be generated on an electronic voting system accessible by voters with disabilities.” All voting equipment certified to VVSG must meet its full suite of accessibility requirements, so some have argued that all VVSG-certified equipment would meet the exception described here.  

Additionally, HAVA requires that election officials provide at least one accessible voting machine per polling place, but states determine whether all voters or just voters with disabilities can use these systems (a decision that warrants nuanced discussion).

In short, while the VVSG establishes technical standards for voting systems, it does not and cannot govern which voters get to use which pieces of equipment. This means the executive order does not ban jurisdictions from using machines that use bar codes….

Share this:

“Trump and his allies mount a pressure campaign against US elections ahead of the midterms”

election administration, election subversion risk

Fredreka Schouten for CNN:

A few weeks ago, Republican election officials in Colorado began receiving unsolicited calls and texts from a GOP consultant who said he was working with the Trump administration on “election integrity.”

In a text to one of the officials, the consultant, Jeff Small, indicated he was acting on a request from Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff. In a phone call with another clerk, Small said he was coordinating with the White House and the Justice Department to “implement” an elections executive order signed by President Donald Trump, recalled Justin Grantham, the top election official in Fremont County.

Grantham and Carly Koppes, who oversees elections in Weld County in northern Colorado, told CNN that Small made a specific request: Would they give a third party access to their election equipment?

Both declined.

“Not only is that a hard no, I mean, you’re not even going to breathe on my equipment,” Koppes said.

The outreach to the Colorado clerks is just one of a flurry of recent federal actions launched by the Trump administration and groups aligned with the president.

While the White House distanced itself from Small, Trump and his allies are collecting vast amounts of voter data and working to change the ground rules for next year’s midterms, often by invoking federal government authority.Next year’s midterms hold enormous stakes for Trump and his opposition. Democrats need to net just three seats in the US House in 2026 to flip control of the chamber from Republicans. A Democratic-led House could block Trump’s legislative agenda and launch investigations of the president in the second half of his second term.

Samantha Tarazi, CEO of the nonprofit Voting Rights Lab, which has closely tracked state developments, said she believes Trump is gearing up “to use the power of his office to interfere in the 2026 election.”

“What started as an unconstitutional executive order — marching orders for state action regardless of its fate in court — has grown into a full federal mobilization to seize power over our elections,” she said.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said Trump is “fighting for election integrity” and will keep doing so “despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship.”

“Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic, and we’re confident in securing an ultimate victory in the courtroom,” he said in an email….

AP:

The requests have come in letters, emails and phone calls. The specifics vary, but the target is consistent: The U.S. Department of Justice is ramping up an effort to get voter data and other election information from the states.

Over the past three months, the department’s voting section has requested copies of voter registration lists from state election administrators in at least 15 states, according to an Associated Press tally. Of those, nine are Democrats, five are Republicans and one is a bipartisan commission.

In Colorado, the department demanded “all records” relating to the 2024 election and any records the state retained from the 2020 election….

Share this:

D.C. Bar Committee Recommends that Jeffrey Clark, Who Tried to Help Trump Subvert the 2020 Presidential Election, Be Disbarred

chicanery, election subversion risk

From the report and recommendation:

Having reviewed the record in this matter, including the parties’ arguments before the Board, we reject Respondentís procedural arguments and dispositive motions. On the merits, we conclude that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent attempted to make intentionally false statements when he continued to advocate that the Justice Department issue a letter containing falsehoods. Although the hearing witnesses agreed that Respondent had sincere personal concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election, they also agreed that the Justice Department had not identified potentially outcome-determinative issues in Georgia or other states. Respondent knew that because Messrs. Rosen and Donoghue told him so. Thus, Respondentís conduct constituted an attempt to make intentionally false statements about the results of the Justice Department’s investigation. We agree with the Hearing Committee that Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove that Respondent attempted to seriously interfere with the administration of justice, although for different reasons.

A majority of the Board recommends that Respondent be disbarred. [Footnote: Two Board Members recommend that Respondent be suspended for three years and be required to prove his fitness to practice prior to reinstatement.] We recognize that there are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases. But that is not surprising given the underlying facts. In making this recommendation, we are mindful of the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and deter the respondent and other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. Lawyers must observe the highest standard of professional conduct. At a minimum, they must be honest. While dishonesty is always intolerable, the facts here are significantly aggravating to warrant disbarment: Respondent was prepared to cause the Justice Department to tell a lie about the status of its investigation of an important national issue (the integrity of the 2020 Presidential election). Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so. Respondent persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue. He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.

Share this:

“Fired prosecutor who handled Capitol riot cases sues government”

authoritarian threats in US, Department of Justice, election subversion risk

Washington Post:

A prosecutor who handled some of the most high-profile cases against Jan. 6, 2021 rioters is suing the government over his dismissal last month, arguing that the decision was politically motivated.

Former assistant U.S. attorney Michael Gordon is one of dozens of federal prosecutors the Justice Department has fired since President Donald Trump returned to office, despite such measures generally only being used in cases of misconduct, as The Washington Post reported last month.

On Thursday, Gordon and two other former DOJ employees — Patricia A. Hartman, who was a public affairs specialist in the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, and Joseph W. Tirrell, who led the department’s ethics office — filed a lawsuit Thursday over their terminations, which they said disregarded “long-standing statutory and regulatory protections that govern how and when members of the civil service can be terminated, and the limits thereof.”

Share this:

Trump’s False and Malicious Claims That Former President Obama Engaged in “Treason” in Connection with the 2016 and 2020 Elections Merits Mention Only on Page A17 of the NY Times and Is Barely a Blip Elsewhere

chicanery, election subversion risk

NYT:

Displaying a willingness to weaponize the federal government in ways that were as novel as they were audacious, he took on a wide variety of individuals and institutions — from law firms and universities to journalists and federal bureaucrats — that he felt had crossed him, failed to fall in line or embodied ideological values that he rejected.

But on Tuesday Mr. Trump reverted to earlier form, resurfacing — in a remarkably unfiltered and aggressive rant — his grievances against Mr. Obama, prominent figures in past administrations and others he associated with what he considers a long campaign of persecution dating back to the 2016 election.

Seeking to change the topic at a time when he is under bipartisan political pressure over his unwillingness to do more to release investigative files into Jeffrey Epstein, he said the time had come for his predecessors to face criminal charges.

“I let her off the hook, and I’m very happy I did, but it’s time to start after what they did to me,” Mr. Trump said of Hillary Clinton, adding: “Whether it’s right or wrong, it’s time to go after people. Obama’s been caught directly.”

“He’s guilty,” he added. “This was treason. This was every word you can think of.”

But if his enemies list was familiar, his capacity to pursue retribution appears to be expanding.

Note: “A version of this article appears in print on July 24, 2025, Section A, Page 17 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump’s Retribution Takes Another Turn, Targeting Obama.”

Such is the state of the current media environment and Trump’s successful efforts to “flood the zone with shit.”

And yet, the claim of “treason” is laughably false and a dangerous real weaponization of government. Here’s the AP, Gabbard’s Claims of an Anti-Trump Conspiracy are Not Supported by Declassified Documents:

 Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this month declassified material she claimed proved a “treasonous conspiracy” by the Obama administration in 2016 to politicize U.S. intelligence in service of casting doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidential election victory.

As evidence, Gabbard cited newly declassified emails from Obama officials and a 5-year-old classified House report in hopes of undermining the intelligence community’s conclusion Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to boost Trump and denigrate his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Russia’s activities during the 2016 election remain some of the most examined events in recent history. The Kremlin’s campaign and the subsequent U.S. government response were the subject of at least five major investigations by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committee; two Justice Department special counsels; and the department’s inspector general.

Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion — that Russia embarked on a campaign to interfere in the election through the use of social media and hacked material.

The House-led probe, conducted by Trump allies, also concurred Russia ran an election interference campaign but said the purpose was to sow chaos in the U.S. rather than boost Trump. Several of the reports criticize the actions of Obama administration officials, particularly at the FBI, but don’t dispute the fundamental findings Moscow sought to interfere in the election.

The Associated Press has reviewed those reports to evaluate how Gabbard’s claims stack up…

Share this:

Brennan & R Street: “A State Agenda for Election Security and Resistance”

election administration, election subversion risk, voting technology

New report by Derek Tisler of Brennan Center & Chris McIsaac of R Street Institute:

Election resiliency is about making sure that attacks and other disruptive incidents do not impede voters from casting ballots nor prevent election workers from counting every ballot and certifying a complete and accurate count. While resiliency is top of mind for election officials, they cannot go it alone. Both the complexity of election administration and the global threat environment necessitate an all-hands-on-deck effort, with contributions from leaders across state governments. Lawmakers must set baseline security requirements and provide election officials with sufficient funding to run secure elections. Governors can direct state officials to contribute expertise, training, and resources. Law enforcement can deter attacks and hold perpetrators accountable. And all public leaders can clearly express that threats against election workers and systems will not be tolerated.

This report recommends steps that state leaders should take to strengthen the resiliency of election infrastructure. Its recommendations are informed by leading models that already exist in states but also recognize that the right approach is likely to vary by state. This report encourages a layered approach, as individual recommendations build on one another to safeguard security. And above all else, this report emphasizes the importance of planning and coordination to deter, prevent, detect, and respond to attacks on elections.

(This post was corrected to note that McIsaac is of R Street Institute, not Brennan Center, and that the report is from both organizations.)

Share this: