(CNN)If we need any further evidence that President Donald Trump's voter fraud commission is a sham, we can find it in its request for all 50 states to turn over exceedingly detailed information on its voter rolls, without any apparent justification.
The vice chairman of the commission, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach,sent a letter to all 50 states requesting the state's publicly-available voter rolls, including such personal information as the last four digits of someone's Social Security number and "information regarding military status."
In the abstract, matching voter rolls with other available data may not seem like a bad idea. After all, we all want accuracy in our voter registration information.
The problems come about when one looks deeper into Kobach's history, which I'll discuss in a moment, and which offers some blunt clues about his true motivations.
To begin, the information he's seeking will reveal what we know already -- that some voter registration rolls are bloated -- and not much else. The voter databases include extra people for a particularly innocuous reason: Individuals die or move quite frequently.
But there is no evidence whatsoever that outdated voter lists lead to any kind of voter fraud. Simply put, dead people, or those who have moved, do not voteillegally in any significant number.
In addition, election data experts --notably lacking on this commission -- know that simply comparing large lists of voters will not provide useful information because of the number of false matches. The well-known "Birthday Problem" shows that it is somewhat likely that two people with the same common name -- say, John Smith -- will also share a birthday. The fact that two different state voter rolls might list this same name is not evidence of voter fraud.
Yet those who peddle the rampant voter fraud canard have been looking for evidence to support their theories, all in an effort to justify ever-stricter voting laws. They cannot find any widespread voter fraud, so they use issues of bloated voter registration rolls as their evidence. But that proves nothing beyond the reality that states need a better way to update their voter rolls.
This is exactly what Trump's Commission on Election Integrity is positioning itself to do, as well: use evidence of voter registration anomalies to promote strict voting rules that make it harder for some people to vote.
Indeed, we already know that one of Kobach's main policy goals is to repeal the National Voter Registration Act, also known as Motor-Voter, which makes it easier to register to vote. He also supports strict proof of citizenshiprequirements for registration that make it harder for some people to vote -- with zero corresponding "integrity benefit."
Seen in this light, it seems obvious why Kobach has requested detailed voter data from all 50 states, and why almost half the states, like Virginia and Kentucky, are rightly refusing to comply. Setting aside the privacy concerns (of which there are many), this information will provide nothing useful while laying the groundwork for the commission to peddle its theories of massive voter fraud.
The public should not be fooled. If Kobach and his commission were serious about improving our election system, his integrity panel would be truly bipartisan, much like President Barack Obama's Presidential Commission on Election Administration was four years ago.
The co-chairs were Obama's main election lawyer and Mitt Romney's main election lawyer, and the commission came up with unanimous, bipartisan solutions to our nation's election woes, offering practical solutions to reduce long lines.
If Trump's commission were a serious endeavor, it would include top election experts from both sides of the aisle. For the commission itself to have integrity, it must look at the ways states make it harder to vote for no good reason, such as through strict voter ID requirements that serve no purpose other than to drum up concerns of voter fraud, harming actual voters in the process.
If this commission were genuine, it would consider ways to make it easier to vote and enhance the election system, such as through automatic voter registrationor by increasing early voting opportunities.
Instead, Trump's voter fraud commission has one purpose, represented even in its name: the Commission on Election Integrity. It will focus solely on "integrity" so that the public thinks there is a problem where none exists. That approach will lead us backward, not forward, in the effort to promote and protect the right to vote, the most fundamental right in our democracy.
Mississippi has become the latest state to reject the request for personal data on all registered voters from President Donald Trump's voter fraud commission.
Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann's office has not yet received a request from the commission but will refuse to comply when it does receive one, joining several other states that are rejecting the request.
"They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great state to launch from," Hosemann, a Republican, said in a statement on Friday. "Mississippi residents should celebrate Independence Day and our state's right to protect the privacy of our citizens by conducting our own electoral processes."
The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity sent a letter to the states on June 28 asking for voters' names, addresses, birth dates, voting history and military status, among other information. The letter did not detail what the commission will do with the data, but asked states to send it by July 14.
The commission said everything would be made publicly available.Hosemann is one of the first Republican secretaries of state to publicly reject the commission's request. California, New York and Virginia have also said they will refuse to comply with the request, and Connecticut said it would hold back protected data.
More than 20 states reject “voter fraud” commission's request for data
CBS/AP July 1, 2017, 10:26 AM Last Updated Jul 1, 2017 10:26 AM EDT link
More than 20 states on Friday refused to fully cooperate with the request for data on voters by the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.
Some of the nation's most populous states, including California and New York, are refusing to comply. But even some conservative states that voted for President Trump, such as Texas, say they can provide only partial responses based on what is legally allowed under state law.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe told CBS News his state will not hand over sensitive voter files to the White House.
"This is an outrageous violation of citizens privacy rights," McAuliffe said.
Given the mishmash of information Mr. Trump's commission will receive, it's unclear how useful it will be or what the commission will do with it. Mr. Trump established the commission to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the 2016 elections, but Democrats have blasted it as a biased panel that is merely looking for ways to suppress the vote.
In a tweet Saturday morning, Mr. Trump questioned why states were not complying with what he called "the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL."
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide? 9:07 AM - 1 Jul 2017
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders blasted the decision by some governors and secretaries of state not to comply.
"I think that that's mostly about a political stunt," she told reporters at a White House briefing.
Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, a Republican, said in a statement Friday that he had not received the request for information from the Trump commission, but another secretary of state had forwarded the correspondence to him. In a federal court case after a contentious U.S. Senate primary in Mississippi in 2014, a group called True the Vote sued Mississippi seeking similar information about voters, and Hosemann fought that request and won.
Hosemann said if he receives a request from the Trump commission, "My reply would be: They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico, and Mississippi is a great state to launch from." Hosemann also said: "Mississippi residents should celebrate Independence Day and our state's right to protect the privacy of our citizens by conducting our own electoral processes."
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, tweeted Friday that his state would not comply with the commission's request for a list of the names, party affiliations, addresses and voting histories of all voters, if state laws allow it to be public.
Andrew Cuomo ✔@NYGovCuomo NY refuses to perpetuate the myth voter fraud played a role in our election. We will not comply with this request.http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/29/534901343/white-house-panel-asks-states-for-their-voter-rolls … 12:12 PM - 30 Jun 2017
McAuliffe said there is no evidence of voter fraud in the state.
"We will not let Donald Trump and right wing extremists use this as some covert plan to get data to make it harder for people to vote," McAuliffe said. "We won't stand for it."
On Wednesday the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity sent a letter giving secretaries of state about two weeks to provide about a dozen points of voter data. That also would include dates of birth, the last four digits of voters' Social Security numbers and any information about felony convictions and military status.
Other Democratic officials are also refusing to comply, saying the request invades privacy and is based on false claims of fraud. The secretaries of state in California and Kentucky, all Democrats, said they will not share the requested information.
Mr. Trump lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton but has alleged, without evidence, that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally.
In addition to the voter information, the letter asks state officials for suggestions on improving election integrity and to share any evidence of fraud and election-related crimes in their states. The data will help the commission "fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting," vice chairman and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach wrote.
The California and Virginia officials said attention would be better spent upgrading aging voting systems or focusing on Russia's alleged election meddling. Mr. Trump has alleged "serious voter fraud" in both states.
"California's participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud," Democratic Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement. Clinton won California by about 3 million votes.
Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes expressed similar sentiments, reports CBS Lexington affiliate WKYT-TV. A statement released by her office said, "The president created his election commission based on the false notion that 'voter fraud' is a widespread issue – it is not. Indeed, despite bipartisan objections and a lack of authority, the President has repeatedly spread the lie that three to five million illegal votes were cast in the last election. Kentucky will not aid a commission that is at best a waste of taxpayer money and at worst an attempt to legitimize voter suppression efforts across the country."
Wisconsin's elections administrator, Michael Haas, said in a statement Friday that a voters' "name, address and voting history are public," but the state does not collect information about political preference or gender, and Wisconsin law does not permit the state to release a voter's date of birth, driver's license number or Social Security number. Should the commission want the public information, Haas said it'll have to pay the $12,500 fee for the statewide voter file.
Oklahoma, too, said that its voter roll is public, and an Oklahoma State Election Board spokesman said that the commission could have "a copy of the same database that anyone could get from us," according to NewsOK. Oklahoma will not release even partial Social Security numbers, however.
Georgia will also provide only publicly available voter information, not private information.
The panel is seeking "public information and publicly available data" from every state and the District of Columbia, said Marc Lotter, a spokesman for Vice President Mike Pence, who is chairing the commission. Lotter described the intent of the request as "fact-finding" and said there were no objections to it by anyone on the 10-member commission, which includes four Democrats.
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, said he's not sure whether he will share the data because of privacy concerns. Vermont's top election official, Democrat Jim Condos, said it goes beyond what the state can publicly disclose.
In Missouri, Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said he is happy to "offer our support in the collective effort to enhance the American people's confidence in the integrity of the system." Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams, a Republican, said he'll provide what state law allows.
Other states have not yet decided whether to comply with the commission's request. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican who is running for governor, is still considering the request, Cincinnati.com reported.
Grimes said there is "not enough bourbon here in Kentucky to make this request seem sensible. ... Not on my watch are we going to be releasing sensitive information that relate to the privacy of individuals."
What if find interesting about Trumps lame attempt to manufacture a case for voter fraud...if he's got GOP led states telling him to jump in the Gulf of Mexico,there must be a reason.
Trump can't stand the fact that he did not win the popular vote by 3 million votes, he's willing to hire his own Phony Election Fraud Panel to manufacture a reason why he lost the popular vote.
If there were voter fraud in these GOP led states that are telling Trumps fraud panel "to shove it", those GOP Governors would have already exposed it.
Can Trump be trusted?...many of the GOP Governors just gave their answer and they obviously agree with most Democrates..can't trust the Pres.
The reason states are refusing to follow Tumps executive order...THEY DON'T TRUST HIM.
Trumps popularity and support is declining among GOPers.
Sure beats governing. I see it as an unnecessary privacy problem. No need for it. No basis for the claims of this president. Nothing else pressing? I expect Huckabee to be told to spin this. Hasn't done well with that IMO.
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
I keep reading articles and people stating that liberal states aren't doing it, but why no mention of all the conservative states that give trump the middle finger on this?
Haus, 40, is Louisiana a liberal state?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Wow! You guys sure have a pile of excuses for not allowing an investigation of voter fraud.
It was only back in November when you Liberals were suing States for recounts.
What gives?
Like we don't already know.
They don't want any investigations to go forward because every day it goes on brings us one day closer to the Big Reveal where the Russians attempted to hack voter registration rolls on behalf of the Democrat Party.
Walk it through with me:
The Russians attempted to hack in to the voter registration roles, not the actual voting machines. Assuming they had succeeded, there's only 1 of 2 things they could have done:
1) delete voter registrations
or
2) add voter registrations
Only one of these 2 options would have benefited Trump, that being to delete registered Democrats from the rolls. Except that nt even that really would work because let's say John Q goes to vote, they tell him he's not registered. We still have a system whereby he can cast a provisional ballot. And when significant numbers of people show up and complain that they were told they weren't registered when they had, it would trigger an investigation which would in turn reveal the hacking.
On the flip side, who does expanding the registration roles benefit? Yes, obviously the Democrats, the Party that doesn't believe that a person should provide proof of their identity beyond saying "Hello my name is____". People have finally gotten hip to dead people voting Democrat and thousands of illegals who cast votes when they shouldn't have.
What else do we know: Pesident Obama was aware of the attempted hacking but was not concerned about it. He said he didn't want to mention it because he was afraid of unduly influencing the election. WTF? How does showing an interest in protecting the integrity of our voting system unduly influence an election? Oh that's right, you don't want to bring up serious cyber security issues when your Party's candidate was found criminally negligent on that very topic.
The other reason President Obama wouldn't be concerned... well, why would you when if successful it benefits your party? Not saying there was specific communication and planning between the Dems and Russia, but let's use a Browns/Steelers game as an analogy:
We are marching down the field for the game winning TD. The Refs call a blatant BS pass interference call on the Steelers secondary. As a result, we get it at the 1 and punch it in for the Win. Yeah, we'd readily admit it was a bad call, but as Browns fans, not a single one of us is going to register a complaint with the NFL because "Hey, we won".
Or something to this effect
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
Not really though lol. I haven't had a lot of time lately as I've been off getting cop training that people keep saying we need but don't actually realize we are already getting but it makes them feel good to tell themselves they are coming up with 'solutions'. Plus, I haven't seen a whole lot that inspires me to comment on the boards for awhile now.
I figure I'm coming up on my 2000th post. Hopefully it'll be something memorably absurd.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
ill figure something out to get you to 2000 real quick
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Some states are taking a stand against a new government committee that seeks data on millions of American voters.
The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, created by the Trump administration, has sent letters to each state asking for information on voters, including names, addresses, birthdates, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, felony convictions, voting history through 2006, party affiliation and multistate voter registration.
President Trump launches commission on 'election integrity'
States push back against releasing voter data to fraud commission
Fact-checking Trump's repeated unsubstantiated claim of widespread voter fraud
Some states said they will share only information that is already publicly available.
Seven states are refusing to comply with the request. Many states are still reviewing the request or have not yet received it.
Here is where the states stand, according to the National Association of Secretaries of State, as of July 3.
Alabama: Will provide information that is publicly available if convinced effort will “produce necessary results”
Alaska: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Arizona: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Arkansas: has not received a letter from the commission
California: will not release any personal data as requested
Colorado: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Connecticut: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Delaware: refuses to comply
District of Columbia: refuses to comply
Florida: is reviewing the request, no official decision yet
Georgia: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Hawaii: has not received a letter from the commission
Idaho: is reviewing the request, no official decision yet
Illinois: has not received a letter from the commission
Indiana: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Iowa: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Kansas: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Kentucky: will not release any sensitive personal data
Louisiana: refuses to comply
Maine: no official decision yet
Maryland: The state's attorney general issued a letter to the governor urging him and the state Board of Elections not to reply.
Massachusetts: will not provide information, as the information is not public record
Michigan: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Minnesota: will not provide sensitive personal information
Mississippi: refuses to comply
Missouri: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Montana: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data; voter file is public record
Nebraska: no official decision yet
Nevada: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
New Hampshire: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
New Jersey: no response
New Mexico: will not release personal voter information and will not release other voting information until convinced it will not be used for nefarious or unlawful purposes and provided with a clear plan for how it will be secured
New York: refuses to comply
North Carolina: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
North Dakota: does not have voter registration; state law does not appear to permit sharing of information from the central voter file
Ohio: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Oklahoma: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Oregon: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Pennsylvania: refuses to comply with request
Rhode Island: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
South Carolina: has not received a letter from the commission
South Dakota: refuses to comply
Tennessee: under state law does not allow release of information requested
Texas: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Utah: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Vermont: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Virginia: does not intend to respond to request
Washington: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
West Virginia: has not received a letter from the commission
Wisconsin: will only partly comply by providing publicly available data
Wyoming: no official decision yet
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I like President Trump, but am not in favor of releasing said information.
The only think I want the Fed involved with is to ensure that only people with proper forms of state or federal I.D. are allowed to vote. Only resistered voters.
No illegals, no dead people.
I'd like to see that when a county issues a death certificate, one is sent to the state election commission so they can purge that voter from the rolls.
I do the the Fed should be given oversight power to see that all states are playing fair.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
They don't want any investigations to go forward because every day it goes on brings us one day closer to the Big Reveal where the Russians attempted to hack voter registration rolls on behalf of the Democrat Party.
No need to hack voter rolls...
Were Voting Machines Actually Breached? DHS Would Rather Not Know
By SAM THIELMAN Published JUNE 30, 2017 6:00 AM link
Pressure to examine voting machines used in the 2016 election grows daily as evidence builds that Russian hacking attacks were broader and deeper than previously known. And the Department of Homeland Security has a simple response:
No.
DHS officials from former secretary Jeh Johnson to acting Director of Cyber Division Samuel Liles may be adamant that machines were not affected, but the agency has not in fact opened up a single voting machine since November to check.
Asked about the decision, a DHS official told TPM: “In a September 2016 Intelligence Assessment, DHS and our partners determined that there was no indication that adversaries were planning cyber activity that would change the outcome of the coming US election.”
According to the most recent reports, 39 states were targeted by Russian hackers, and DHS has cited–without providing details–domestic attacks in its own reports as well.
“Although we continue to judge all newly available information, DHS has not fundamentally altered our prior assessments,” the department told TPM.
Computer scientists have been critical of that decision. “They have performed computer forensics on no election equipment whatsoever,” said J. Alex Halderman, who testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week about the vulnerability of election systems. “That would be one of the most direct ways of establishing in the equipment whether it’s been penetrated by attackers. We have not taken every step we could.”
Voting machines, especially the electronic machines still used in several states, are so insecure that an attack on them is likely to be successful, according to a report from NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice out Thursday morning. David Dill, a voting systems expert and professor of computer science at Stanford University quoted in the report, said hackers can easily breach election systems regardless of whether they’re able to coordinate widely enough to alter a general election result.
“I don’t know why they wouldn’t try to hack voting machines and I don’t know what would stop them,” Dill told TPM. “Any statement that says ‘We haven’t see evidence of X’ also means ‘We haven’t lifted a finger to investigate.’”
DHS told TPM Wednesday afternoon it was confident in “multiple checks and redundancies in US election infrastructure” and referred to the testimony of Liles and Jeannette Manfra, DHS undersecretary for cybersecurity, who said US electoral systems were fortified by “diversity of systems, non-Internet connected voting machines, pre-election testing, and processes for media, campaign, and election officials to check, audit, and validate results.”
The new Brennan Center report, however, details the dangers of voting machines that aren’t properly secured, particularly the effect on public confidence of a very public successful hack, whether or not it managed to swing an election. “In the current hyper-partisan environment,” the authors noted, “evidence of this kind of hack could lead to accusations by each side that the other is rigging the election.”
While forensic examinations would answer many questions vital to researchers trying to improve voting systems, the potential for eroded confidence in those systems may help to explain DHS’ reluctance to seek out hard evidence. The department said most attacks were simple scanning, rather than attempts to alter tallies or poll books.
Evidence always seems to stop with “we don’t know:” An NSA report leaked to The Intercept in June detailed a phishing operation by the Russian military intelligence agency GRU on voting hardware maker VR Systems that in turn targeted voting officials. Like DHS, the NSA said it was unclear whether those officials’ machines had been compromised.
Some of the paralysis around how to move forward is a result of tensions between DHS and states angry about the designation of their election systems as “critical infrastructure” in January, just before President Trump took office. Then-secretary Johnson even acknowledged at the time that the designation was controversial to many state election officials, who see the offer of federal assistance, often with strings attached, as an attempted takeover (Johnson testified last week that when a critical infrastructure designation was first floated to state officials in August, the reaction “ranged from neutral to negative”).
“They’re in this strange position where they had a lot of pushback from election officials over federal overreach and in some ways they’re in a little bit of a bind,” said the Brennan Center’s Larry Norden, one of the authors of its report.
Everyone knows what has to be fixed, Norden says, but no one wants to go first. “The states want the counties to act, the counties want the state to pay for things, the states may want the money but they don’t want any of the mandates that come with the money,” he says. “There are investigations but there are no positive solutions yet.”
Current auditing processes, which vary wildly from state to state, are frequently arduous and sometimes nonsensical. In Virginia, where the margin of victory is often very shallow, it is illegal to audit the vote except when the margin is more than 10 percent—and only then if the local election official agrees, and after the election has been certified. When that audit takes place, it can’t change the outcome of the election, even if the audit reveals a completely different tally.
Cybersecurity expert Jeremy J. Epstein says the Virginia rule illustrates why widespread changes to voting standards are so difficult: Every place has different rules. In many states, “localities have almost no ability to raise funds,” Epstein observes. “Even if the state wants to do something, getting 130 localities in Virginia to do something that requires action at a local level is very hard to do.”
The dangers are real: Some voting machines still use Windows XP, which Microsoft hasn’t updated in years. Epstein has personally demonstrated huge security flaws in others. In 2015, he successfully campaigned to decertify the AVS WinVote machine, a touchscreen device that used a woefully outdated and insecure wireless protocol called WEP, which can be hacked in three minutes. Epstein pulled off the hack successfully and was able to retrieve the WinVote’s factory-set passwords: “abcde” and “admin.”
Halderman, too, has dramatically demonstrated how easy it is to take over voting machines, in one case simply by loading a voting machine with a memory card filled with malicious software that can then hitch a ride on that machine back to the central location where the votes are tallied (Machines are left unguarded so often that Ed Felten, who worked in the Obama White House as a deputy chief technology officer, used to make a tradition of posting pictures of them to his and Halderman’s blog, Freedom to Tinker).
In fact, Halderman testified before the Senate Intelligence panel that not only could he successfully breach voting machines himself, but he had made the process part of his assigned coursework.
“I know firsthand how easy it can be to manipulate computerized voting machines,” he told the Senate. “As part of security testing, I’ve performed attacks on widely used voting machines, and I’ve had students successfully attack machines under my supervision.”
These computer scientists agree the problem is urgent and nonpartisan, and no less a Trump ally than Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that he believed the problem was serious, too. Even in the polarized post-election environment, Norden says he thinks legislators may be able to agree on the issue need to secure voting systems.
“The intelligence community has been pretty clear that while [the Russian hacking teams] may have favored Trump in the election, their interest is in undermining our democracy,” said Norden. “Regardless of party, I think we all share the idea that democracy is essential to the country.”
You can't complain about voter fraud, and then retain Kris Kobach as vice chair of the committee you formed to determine if their is a problem.
Kobach is a well established figure in the right wing nut world of papers please and voter restrictions.
It's akin to giving the fox the keys to the chicken coop and not expecting a few of the hens to be gone.
Outcome predetermined before its even started.
It stinks worse than dead fish after 3 days in the hot sun.
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
