On Twitter, Mike Farb analyzes the CA VP presentation, and finds some stunning easter eggs...

[ehrnst]

Starts here.

Link to tweet

Highlights:








So, a close analysis of a presentation of Molly Schweickert, Vice President Global Media from Cambridge Analytica, shows some pretty damning evidence of being more deeply involved in the actual General election process, not just FB.


Video of the presentation:

https://t.co/PtsK6WBQUc

[Tatiana]

1. We need to track down who gave them the absentee voting data.

Which Secretaries of State?

Pennsylvania? Michigan? Florida?

[Wellstone ruled]

3. Oh boy,the can of worms is now open.

This is going add years onto any investigations into Vote manipulation.

[LisaM]

10. Exactly. She makes it sound as if they got actual RESULTS from early absentees...

not just data on how many had been turned in.

[ewagner]

11. Absentee voting data....

Given the type of profiling they were doing, if they got the NAMES/ADDRESSES of the absentee ballots requested or turned in, they could build a reasonably accurate model of what the turnout would be as well as how well/poorly Trump was doing in various critical zip codes.

I'm not buying that they were able to do anything except perhaps exit polls on election day. I don't think they were able to hack the actual totals...at least in Wisconsin where the paper ballots had to foot to the counting machine totals.

[Tatiana]

13. I agree with your assessment.

But this would give them an idea of how many more votes they needed and where they could find them.

It would require people supervising our voting process to be working with a foreign entity.

Which could put this under Mueller's purview.

[Farmer-Rick]

2. Repeat after me

No votes were changed, no votes were changed, no votes were changed.

This makes it clear that the cheat system needs to know what the turnout is to be able to rig the vote count in some kind of realistic manner. So, an unexpectedly large turnout can throw off their cheat system.

[erronis]

7. Repeat: No votes were changed, no votes were changed, no votes were changed.

Yes, my lord. Should I take another swig of the koolaid?

And unfortunately we need to trust the vote counters/mechanisms at some point to know that something is awry.

We've been told that exit polls are unreliable. I think we know why we have been told that.

[Farmer-Rick]

17. Absolutely

I never did understand why Obama and the Dems didn't institute some kind of exit verification polling. Most countries do some amount of verification on a routine basis. But not the US.

[poboy2]

4. R'd

[MontanaMama]

5. Why is this not on

every news channel and newspaper in the country?? What states? My god this is unbelievable.

[mythology]

6. Considering Mike Farb's history of being full of shit

I see no reason to believe he's accurate here. Farb is either an absolute idiot, or completely dishonest. He shouldn't be taken seriously.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/1/1667848/-Election-Fraud-Myths-Unhack-The-Vote-Rehashes-Old-Mistakes

[diva77]

20. https://www.unhackthevote.com/ has lots of great information. No reason or justification to

be so dismissive of the info posted there. The website is a great place to get acquainted with election fraud. I don't see what that article you linked to proves/disproves, frankly.

[FakeNoose]

8. Didn't Steve Bannon say almost the same thing?

What I read about Bannon on election day, he was watching all the same numbers this woman is talking about. Bannon was *certain* that Trump would win the election. I'm guessing that means Cambridge Analytica advisers were feeding him all the numbers they were collecting.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Absentee ballot data they were using was based on Party registration.

This is standard long-standing practice.

[backtoblue]

12. Isn't our vote supposed to be anonymous?

I'm just wondering about the legality of a third party having that kind of access. Then again, I've proven myself to be very naive lately regarding privacy ...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Yes. But on a precinct basis of TURNOUT, you get relatively fine grained data.

If an area has 70% R and 20% D and 10% I and turnout is up for the Rs and down for the Ds, you might figure that whatever was working there might work elsewhere with high R concentrations.

The basic idea is that Rs tend to vote R and Ds tend to vote D.

So turnout is key.

GotV

[backtoblue]

19. Gotcha. Ty! nt

[Orangepeel]

18. HOW you vote is anonymous. WHETHER you vote isnt

Neither is what party you are registered with, should the state have party registration. Campaigns have always used that info to decide who to spend their limited resources contacting.

[diva77]

15. "Cambridge Analytica was getting voting data from secretaries of state? "

Good for Mike Farb for bringing out that shocking issue -- early voting is a way to extrapolate how to "adjust" the vote on election day -- something that election protection activists and computer experts brought up years ago.

I ask again: Why is Facebook a corporate sponsor of NASS.org and other organizations consisting of elections officials. Why are they mingling with elections officials at conferences, parties, etc.?
-----------------

From OP:

MikeFarb
‏ @mikefarb1
Mar 21

Results coming in from the Secretaries of States from Absentee Ballots!! Results!!

WTF!! Really? In real time, on election day, Cambridge Analytica was getting voting data from secretaries of state? How is this possible? What information were they getting?
67 replies 1,098 retweets 1,964 likes
MikeFarb
‏ @mikefarb1
Mar 21

No matter how good their data was they still didn’t know how many people would vote and how many of them would vote.

There is only one way to know you are going to win an election.

You need to be able to adjust the vote.
34 replies 696 retweets 1,675 likes
MikeFarb
‏ @mikefarb1
Mar 21

What else was their data used for?

No one would have had better data as to where they needed votes and about how many votes they needed.

[spanone]

16. translation: Stolen Election