RSS

Tag Archives: fraud

Why The Investigation of Trump-Putin Money Is Going Nowhere

Three words…Federal Bureau of Investigation AKA the FBI.

Led by Trump Traitor James Comey. The guy who is under investigation himself for releasing false information on Clinton just before the election.

The fix is in.

FBI's warning of white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement nearly forgotten news 1x1.trans

The FBI is leading an investigation into Donald Trump’s connections with Russia

Trump is about to take over a government that has suspicions about whether he has been compromised by Russia

The FBI is leading a multi-agency investigation into possible links between Russian officials and President-elect Donald Trump.

The bureau will be joined by the CIA, National Security Agency, and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit, according to The New York Times on Thursday. They will reportedly be looking into intercepted communications and financial transactions involving Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman; Carter Page, a former Trump foreign policy adviser; and Roger Stone, a Republican political operative and Trump confidante. One official told the Times that intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications were provided to the White House.

The report did not say whether Trump himself or his presidential campaign have been directly implicated in these investigations or whether they involve the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee. All that is known for sure is that they at least partially encompass Trump’s past business dealings with Russia, as well as Manafort’s previous work in both Russia and Ukraine (when the latter state was controlled by a Putin puppet). Sources also told the Times that some of Manafort’s contacts were under surveillance by the National Security Agency because of possible links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, the successor to the infamous KGB.

The legal standards for opening one of these investigations are not very high, and as a result prosecutions are uncommon. Because Trump will soon oversee the agencies conducting these efforts, he will have the power to hinder or even outright squelch them.

“We have absolutely no knowledge of any investigation or even a basis for such an investigation,” said Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks. Manafort was even more defiant, emailing the Times on Thursday evening that claims he had interacted with the Russian government were a “Democrat Party dirty trick and completely false.”

There are numerous connections between Trump and Russia that are beyond dispute. It is a fact that Manafort worked for pro-Putin politicians in Ukraine (his denials notwithstanding), that Trump advisers like Rex Tillerson and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn are also connected to Putin, that Trump took little interest in the Republican Party platform except to make sure that it wasn’t too harsh on Russia, that he openly encouraged Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, and that he had to turn to Russian financial interests tied to the Putin regime to fund his business ventures when major banks stopped lending him money.

That said, if the FBI has been aware of these investigations since before October, it will raise serious questions about why FBI Director James Comey didn’t disclose them to the public when he did choose to disclose a warrant into Hillary Clinton’s emails, which were ultimately about “nothing at all.”

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Anonymous Threatens the Chumph…But Will They Deliver?

I have said all along that the Chumph’s background is rife with evidence of fraud, bribery, and other misdeeds.They are not that hard to dig out. Anonymous makes a lot of noise, but unfortunately the last few go-rounds haven’t really produced much of significant substance. So…For what it is worth.

Image result for anonymous

Anonymous – A Paper Tiger?

Anonymous warns Trump: ‘You are going to regret the next 4 years’

The hacker collective Anonymous has a reputation for delivering ominous messages, and in recent days, the group has begun targeting President-elect Donald Trump in a serious way

A series of messages posted on Twitter and include allegations that the group plans to reveal sordid information about Trump.

“This isn’t the 80’s any longer, information doesn’t vanish, it is all out there. You are going to regret the next 4 years,” one message read.

In another, the group alleges Trump has “financial and personal ties with Russian mobsters, child traffickers, and money launderers.”

So far the hacking group has provided no concrete evidence to back up those claims.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 19, 2017 in Second American Revolution

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

More Corruption and Thuggery – Trump Tries to Force Country to Use His Hotel

Want an appointment with the Chumph? Pay $1 million to his kids, or schedule a major event at his hotel. The Four Seasons is one of the best Hotels in DC with an absolutely “killer” chef. It isn’t for the weak of wallet, or faint of plastic though. Moving from the Four Seasons to the Trump Hotel is like moving from the Ritz to a Motel 6.

Conflict of interest, corruption, and profiteering is supposedly against the law.

Image result for Four Seasons Georgetown

Four Seasons Banquet

Kuwait cancels event because of pressure to move to Trump hotel

The Embassy of Kuwait allegedly cancelled a contract with a Washington, D.C. hotel days after the presidential election, citing political pressure to hold its National Day celebration at the Trump International Hotel instead.

A source tells ThinkProgress that the Kuwaiti embassy, which has regularly held the event at the Four Seasons in Georgetown, abruptly canceled its reservation after members of the Trump Organization pressured the ambassador to hold the event at the hotel owned by the president-elect. The source, who has direct knowledge of the arrangements between the hotels and the embassy, spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity because the individual was not authorized to speak publicly. ThinkProgress was also able to review documentary evidence confirming the source’s account.

Image result for trump hotel DC

Chumph Motel 6 in DC

ThinkProgress reported late Monday that employees of the president-elect’s private business interests were ultimately successful in their campaign to pressure Kuwait into moving its National Day celebration to the Trump International Hotel from the Four Seasons, where the event has been held annually for years. According to an anonymous source with knowledge of the arrangements and documentary evidence reviewed by the news site, the decision to move the event to Trump’s hotel was a result of “political pressure” by the Trump Organization:

In the early fall, the Kuwaiti Embassy signed a contract with the Four Seasons. But after the election, members of the Trump Organization contacted the Ambassador of Kuwait, Salem Al-Sabah, and encouraged him to move his event to Trump’s D.C. hotel, the source said.

Kuwait has now signed a contract with the Trump International Hotel, the source said, adding that a representative with the embassy described the decision as political. Invitations to the event are typically sent out in January.

This comes after the Trump International Hotel hosted some 100 foreign diplomats for a reception in mid-November, according to The Washington Post. The Embassy of Bahrain also hosted a reception at Trump’s hotel on Dec. 7.

Aside from the obvious conflict of interest concerns these arrangements elicit, it may be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Trump’s hotel inside D.C.’s historic Post Office Pavilion is actually owned by the federal government. A group of Democratic House lawmakers recently warned that Trump would breach his 60-year hotel lease with the federal government “the moment he takes office” unless he fully divests his interests in it.

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Majority of Voting Machines Broke in Detroit on Election Day

Fresh on the heels of a Wisconsin recount awarding the Chump a victory…A majority of voting machines, especially those in majority-minority precincts were broken on election day in Michigan.

Michigan officials admit majority of Detroit vote counting machines broke on Election Day

Was it merely old equipment which incompetent officials had failed to bother getting serviced, or was there something intentionally sinister going on? That’s the question now coming out of Michigan, where just as the statewide recount is getting underway, officials are finally admitting that the majority of vote counting machines in Detroit broke on election day. The stunning admission, which is getting virtually no national news coverage despite appearing in a major Detroit newspaper, casts doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s supposed narrow win in the state.

Even now, elections director Daniel Baxter appears to only be making the admission as part of a convoluted argument for why the ballots in those Detroit precincts can’t be recounted. He’s acknowledging that eighty-seven optical scanners in Detroit simply “broke” on the same day. But he and other Michigan officials are now making the argument that, because the broken machines resulted in different vote totals on the machines than on the precinct log books, state law means those ballots can’t be recounted.

The paradoxical argument, which is on full display in the Detroit News today, seems unlikely to pass the scrutiny of the federal judge who ruled on Sunday night that every county and precinct must immediately recount its votes by hand. But third party candidate Jill Stein, who initiated the recount and is paying for it, would need to take the matter back to the judge.

Meanwhile, the mere fact that fifty-nine percent of the vote counting machines in Michigan’s biggest city all broke on the same day is standing out as a stunning development. It calls into question why officials failed to publicly disclose this information until they needed it for their convoluted argument against recounting the majority of Detroit’s votes. With Detroit being 82% African-American and thus demographically likely to have heavily favored Hillary Clinton, it directly calls into question whether Donald Trump won Michigan.

Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts

Voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes than they should have during last month’s presidential election, according to Wayne County records prepared at the request of The Detroit News.

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 13, 2016 in Second American Revolution

 

Tags: , , , ,

Florida Voters Sue for Recount

Hmmmmm…Things are heating up!

Image result for election recount

Florida voters file lawsuit demanding official recount

Everything may not be golden for President-elect Donald Trump in the Sunshine State. A group of Florida voters filed a lawsuit Monday demanding a statewide hand recount of the ballots, noting a “deluge” of voting problems, including alleged hackings on electronic voting machines and polling places illegally turning away people from voting.

Trump won Florida with 4.6 million votes statewide, securing 112,000 votes more than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – a margin much larger than when former Vice President Al Gore lost in Florida to former President George W. Bush in 2000 by 537 votes. The defendants listed in the lawsuit include Trump, Gov. Rick Scott and the state’s 29 Republican presidential electors.

The president-elect and the rest of the defendants could simply ignore the lawsuit, or fail to respond before the national deadline to to settle disputes over election results. In that most likely case, the Electoral College will vote on Dec. 19 and Trump will assume office Jan. 20.

But the plaintiffs, who say Clinton was the actual victor in Florida, are calling on officials to probe the election results and determine whether Trump’s win was, in fact, due to a variety of statewide issues. The lawsuit is just the latest call for an investigation into the integrity of the 2016 presidential election, in which an unprecedented level of foreign interference played a major role.

Hillary Clinton conceded to President-elect Donald Trump in New York, Nov. 9, 2016, calling for a peaceful transition of power. Photo: Reuters

Meanwhile, recount efforts spearheaded by former Green Party candidate Jill Stein are continuing in Michigan, which began a statewide recount Monday. Stein has said the chances of any state recounts reversing the election results is highly unlikely. Instead, she wants to bring attention to the security of the nation’s voting process and other problems reportedly experienced in each election cycle. Stein also sought recounts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

“Our effort to recount votes in those states is not intended to help Hillary Clinton,” Stein wrote on her fundraising site for the recount, which received nearly $7.2 million by Tuesday. “These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is.”

The three plaintiffs aren’t the first to call for a recount in Florida. Roque “Rocky” de la Fuente, a 2016 Reform Party candidate in the presidential election, vowed to pursue recounts in Nevada and Florida, citing election fraud and manipulation of electronic voter machines and ballots. Whether Trump decides to back any of these new recount efforts ahead of the approaching deadline, however, remains unknown and unlikely.

“[Trump’s] mentioned he wants to fix the rigged system,” Clint Curtis, the lawyer representing the three Florida voters, told Tallahassee Democrat’s Jeff Burlew. “This will give the opportunity to do that. If it were a normal politician, I’d say our chances are very slim. But it’s not a normal politician — it’s Donald Trump.”

 
3 Comments

Posted by on December 6, 2016 in Second American Revolution

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Trump Pays Up $25 Million …To Stay Out of Jail for Fraud

This is the first of a long line of lawsuits against Trump for his illegitimate scams…

 
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Finally A Few are “Getting It” Relevant to the Election Hack

This election was hacked. Votes were moved or erased in about 4 states to produce an Trump electoral win.  What is interesting here is the anticipated Hispanic tidal wave turned into a trickle. All those new registrations failed to produce matching votes.

Image result for vote machine hacking

Something stinks when exit polls and official counts don’t match

Media exit polls in last Tuesday’s election suggested Democrats were going to win the White House and the Senate, yet the reported vote counts brought a GOP landslide. While theories abound about what happened, election integrity activists say the exit poll descrepancy underscores the need for a far more transparent and accountable process. AlterNet’s Steven Rosenfeld interviewed Jonathan Simon, a longtime exit poll sleuth and author of Code Red: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century. Simon explains why exit polls are a critical clue in the breakdown of the voting process.

Steven Rosenfeld: Let’s start by telling people about your involvement with election integrity and tracking exit polls.

Jonathan Simon: I’ve been working in this field which we call election forensics for about 15 years, since the 2000 election. Certainly things kicked in with the 2004 election and the exit polls there. I was actually the person who downloaded the exit polls that were left up on the CNN website which then made it possible to compare the unadjusted exit polls—and we can explain that in a bit—but comparing the exit polls with the vote counts and show through all those disparities that there was reason to suspect possibly manipulation of the vote counts.

It has deep roots and basically looking at every election since has found varying, but at the same time, fairly pervasive patterns of what we call the “red shift” and where the exit polls are to the west of the vote counts. We track that, we record it and we attempt to analyze it and get some sort of handle on what has caused it as a phenomenon. Then we look at all sorts of forensic data, accumulative vote share, tables and hand counts where we can find them. I’ve always been particularly conscientious about trying to take whatever baseline we’re using and validate that baseline, so that if we have an exit poll for instance, we try to make sure something that has been skewed by over-sampling one party or over-sampling people of color or something to that effect and validate it by that.

We try as carefully as we can. I’ve been doing this pretty steadily now for the last 15 years along with some of my colleagues, and I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a lot of smoke there and there’s a lot of probative value to this work, but that bringing it forth as ironclad proof is very problematic. So we’re stuck at a place where I pivoted to is looking at the risk involved in having a computerized, privatized, unobservable vote counting system and just taking on faith that that system is not being manipulated when there is such a obvious vulnerability (on which the experts strongly agree) of the system to malfeasance and manipulation. That is where I’ve tended to go, is to look at that risk rather than screaming fraud from the rooftops and claiming proof.Image result for vote machine hacking

SR: Let’s go through this piece by piece, because it’s a lot for people to really understand. You get the raw state-by-state exit polls that are commissioned by a big consortium of national media organizations. What did you find this year, that happened this week? What do you see in the raw data?

JS: Of course, we don’t get the raw data. The raw data would be… we have three definitions here. There’s raw data, which is the actual questionnaires and the simple numerical toning up of answers on the questionnaire. That is never publicly released. It’s if you want to characterize it as such, it’s what’s inside the sausage of exit polls, and we are not privileged to see that. I’ve had one opportunity in my life through an inside source to actually look at some of the raw data, but that’s a very rare thing. It’s not generally accessible to the public. Many of us have clamored for the public release of that raw data, certainly in the aftermath of the 2004 election and have been denied it.

Then there is the weighted exit poll data and that’s what the exit pollsters put out as soon as the polls close. This has been demographically weighted to their best approximation of what the electorate looked like and it is very valuable information. That’s what I was able to download in 2004 and that’s what I was able to download in many of the elections since, and that’s what I was able to download this Tuesday.Image result for vote machine hacking

How Local Machines Can be Hacked.

Then you have adjusted exit polls and what happens is they take the vote counts as they come in and they use the term as the art of “forcing,” they force the exit polls to [be] congruent with that vote count data so that by the end of the night or by the next morning when you have your final vote counts and final exit polls the exit polls and the vote counts will match, but that’s only because in essence they’ve been forced to match the vote counts.

SRI’m looking at the New York Times website right now, at its election 2016 exit polls interactive. What are the totals then that I’m seeing?

JS: I’m not looking at the New York Times. I’ve pulled these off of CNN and I’m also looking at MSNBC. Because the firm that does this, Edison, contracts with the consortium of major networks and then has some lesser clients such as the New York Times. When I say lessor, they’re still very major clients, they just don’t have the prime membership that these five networks and the AP have, but all these major clients get the same feed of weighted exit poll data.

What you’re probably looking at now would be adjusted exit polls and they’re very close to, if not congruent with the vote counts. But if you had looked up Tuesday night, for instance, if a poll closed at 7pm Eastern Time and you had gone online to a network site at 7:01pm Eastern Time, what you would have seen at that point was a weighted poll that had not yet been adjusted to match the vote counts. They would tell you the number of respondents. They’d give you all the cross tabs, by which I mean broken down by gender, age, income, party affiliation, usually 30 to 40, sometimes 50 questions … Pretty detailed stuff that indicated how each subgroup of the polled population had answered these various questions.

Some of those questions are demographic questions: What is your race? What is your income level? What party do you identify with? Who did you vote for in the last election? etc., etc. … Then there are the current choice questions. Who did you just vote for this evening and/or this afternoon? Those are all presented in sort of a scroll fashion. You can pull that up on all these websites.Image result for vote machine hacking

However, they will change over time as the vote counts come in. That’s why we screen-capture these initial public postings, because that contains the purest information in terms of not relying on the vote counts and if we’re approaching this with a certain amount of suspicion of the vote counts we’re trying to verify or validate the vote counts we want exit polls that are independent as possible from the actual vote count data, which then becomes blended in as the evening goes on from the time the polls close until whenever the final vote counts are available. That vote count data becomes blended in with the exit poll algorithm and gradually pulls the exit polls in congruence with the vote counts, at which point they’re used for academic analysis of demographics, but they’re not anymore used for validating the vote counts.

SR: Tell me again what the ‘red shift’ is and how you saw this shift again this year.

JS: The red shift is a term that I coined back in 2004 after the Bush-Kerry election, because the familiar term the “red shift” when we mean astronomy, that’s what brought it to my mind. But the reason it’s called the red shift is that it was very directional in that election where you saw vote counts coming out more in favor of Bush, more in favor of Republican candidates. Since Republican by that time had been designated red as in red states and blue states, that’s how it got the moniker the red shift.

What we found from that point forward is that it’s almost a singularity, very rare, that we find any significant blue shift anywhere. When we look at exit polls and vote counts, what we’re almost always seeing are vote counts that come out more in favor of the Republican candidate than the exit polls and in the case of intraparty nomination battles, more in favor of the candidate that is, I guess you’d have to say, to the right of their opponent.

For instance, in the 2016 primaries, a massive shift of exit polls state after state after state, in favor of Hillary Clinton. The vote counts were more in favor of Clinton than the exit polls, which were more in favor of Bernie Sanders. We saw a very consistent pattern of that.

Image result for vote machine hacking

Some systems use credit card derived “data cards”. Easily rewritten to any vote total you want. Don’t even mention the laptop here…

In this past Tuesday, again we saw a very consistent pattern of exit polls that were more in favor of Hillary Clinton, more in favor of Democratic senatorial candidates and then vote counts were shifted from the exit polls to the right towards Donald Trump, towards the Republican senate candidates. Those are the figures that I pulled down and did a very basic analysis of. You have a column of numbers of state by state showing the degree of that shift and we’ll eventually do that for the national vote for the House of Representatives as well.

SR: When you see this discrepancy, without being overly simplistic, the question becomes, why is it there and what caused it? You’ve been through this four or five times and not even counting the midterm elections. What do you think is really going on when you see this general one-way shifting? Does it mean the polling is wrong? Does it mean the voting machinery is being tampered with? Does it mean both? How do you explain or understand this?

JS: What it means to me is that neither system is self validating. Neither system can be trusted. If you look at accounting, you do double entry accounting. I’m not an accountant so my terminology may be off, but you basically audit by checking one column of numbers against another column of numbers. If they disagree, you know something is wrong somewhere. There is some arithmetical mistake, some failure of entry, possibly fraud … you don’t know. You just know that if two things that are pretty much supposed to agree had disagreed, there’s a problem somewhere. I can rule out mathematically and scientifically, by this time, errors due to random chance. Errors due to random chance, sampling errors, what we call margin of error issues, would not be expressing themselves so consistently in one direction. They’d be going in both directions and they’d be much smaller.

If you take a mathematical sample of a whole … if you take a blood draw in a person and you look at 1,000 or so blood cells as represented in of all their millions of blood cells, that’s guaranteed to be a random sample. It’s not like all the bad blood cells hide out in a single vein or something. From that, you get a very clear and crisp mathematical margin of error and it tells you how likely you are to be within X number of percent about what the truth is about the entire target that you’re looking at of the blood of the whole body. That’s how you can make a diagnosis based on a pinprick.

Image result for vote machine hacking

Russian cyber-spies hacked Democratic databases, Democratic emails, and Voter rolls prior to the election. And there is proof that the data was sent to the Trump campaign. Putin suddenly found morals to not hack the elections? NYET!

In exit polling it’s not that simple. In exit polling you have sampling that is not purely mathematically random. First of all, it’s done in clusters because it would be an impractical matter to catch people all over the state randomly coming out at the polls. You’d have to have a person at each precinct, etc. We’re not even talking about early voting and absentee voting. Let’s just leave that out of the equation and assume everybody votes on election day. You’d still have to go to thousands of precincts. It would be prohibitively expensive. What they do instead, and I was a pollster for a couple of years quite long ago, but the methods haven’t changed that much, you basically cluster sample. You pick 20 or 30 precincts that are representative politically and demographically of the whole state and those are the precincts in which you do all your interviews.

That adds mathematically about a 30 percent increase to the margin of error, to the inaccuracy if you want to call that of the poll. It’s certainly a tolerable change or loss of accuracy that can be factored in mathematically, but the real problems come up in exit polling with selection bias, response bias, the possibility of people lying to the pollster, etc. These are the things that have been seized on by those who have debunked the exit polls and said they’re worthless. They’re not worthless and at the same time they’re not best evidence. Best evidence would be the voter marked paper ballots. Best evidence would be the memory cards in the computers and what program is actually determining how these votes are counted, what the code is on those memory cards.

Exit polls are indirect. They’re statistical evidence and they have flaws that are difficult to quantify. When you see pervasive patterns where it is substantial well beyond the margin of error repeatedly in the same direction, in particular when you’ve been able to independently validate the demographics of the exit poll sample. This is the work that I did. It’s in my book, Code Red: Computerized Election Theft in the New American Century.

SR: So this is a persuasive and recurring pattern and not just in this week’s vote?

JS: In the 2016 primary, we compared the performance of the exit polls in the Republican primaries with the performance of the exit poll in the Democratic primaries. There was a glaring difference. I call these “second order comparatives.” Second order comparatives are very important because you’re essentially validating your baseline by doing that. If you’re conscientious about election forensics, that’s the work that you try to do. Does it add up to ironclad proof? No, but it’s a very consistent pattern that is absolutely probative enough that it says, Okay, we want to now take a look at the other system and how the votes are being counted. When you look at that other system and how the votes are being counted, your hair stands on end because it’s so vulnerable to not just outsider hacking, but to insider manipulation as well.

There are certainly a lot of anecdotal instances of this. For instance, just in this particular election, they bought machines in Ohio that had a feature in them that was basically capable of self auditing. It was a security feature. The Republican secretary of state of Ohio allowed the counties to switch off that feature. You have to ask why. You bought it and it had that feature. They said, Well, it would create chaos. You look at things like that and say hmm. You scratch your head and say, what is going on here? What may be happening in that darkness of cyberspace that the exit polls are giving us a pretty good hint about, but the vote counting system itself completely conceals?

SR: Let’s talk about what you found this week. I’m looking at your 2016 presidential chart. I’m looking at North Carolina for example, where it says the exit poll margin was 2.1% ahead for Clinton, but the final vote count showed Trump with a 3.8% lead. You have similar 4.4% Clinton lead in Pennsylvania but then losing by 1.2% to Trump, a 5.6% shift. You have Florida where she was ahead in exit polls by 1.3% and ends up losing by 1.3%, a 2.6% shift.

Is there any reason you can point to as to why you are seeing that in so many different states?

JS: First of all, let me preface it that what they’ve done since 2004 is exit poll fewer and fewer states. I think there were about 30 states exit polled this time, 20 states were left out because they were considered to be locks, non-competitive. What that does for a forensic standpoint is that it cuts our baseline… It’s as if they had a certain limited amount of resources, and they decided to really plow it into getting larger sample sizes in states that they knew were going to be competitive and possibly controversial.

North Carolina was one of those. I believe it had the largest sample size in the country. It was almost 4,000 voters were sampled and the usual sample size in these state exit polls is somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 if they expect it to be competitive. That was basically a double sampling that reduces the mathematical margin of error, but it also improves in a less quantifiable way the accuracy of the poll. That 5.9% red shift from Clinton to Trump is way outside the margin of error for that poll and therefore very unlikely to occur by chance. What might have made it happen? People could’ve been lying to the exit pollster. The exit pollster could’ve been all young urban college kids and the Trump voters might have been reluctant to comply with their requests. There might have been refusals from Trump voters.

Now Edison usually tries to get these things right and one of the ways they try to get it right is through some expensive training and they try to get a fairly represented sample of polling interviewers. The polls by the way are confidential. They’re not verbal interviews. You’re just handed a clipboard with a poll on it. It’s not as intimate as some people would believe. There’s less of an incentive to lie because it’s basically confidential. You fold your polling sheet up and you put it in the box or you hand it back to the interviewer to put it into a grab bag. There’s no name on it. There is nothing that associates you with it. The incentive to lie isn’t particularly high. We’ve always dealt with the—is there a reluctant [George W.] Bush responder going on here, is there a shy Trump voter? We don’t know. These are possibilities, but we’ve seen the same kind of exit poll pattern in intraparty contests, we’ve seen it year after year, we’ve seen it at the Senate races, at the House exit poll. It transcends an individual race like this where there was so much intensity.

If you want to sleep well at night, which I also prefer to denial, and you want to say to yourself, Yeah, it must have been people just lying to the exit pollsters and I’m not going to worry about it, that’s fine. What you’re missing at that point is the fact that if you challenge me to say, How do you know these exit polls are valid? I would turn right around and challenge you and say, How do you know the vote counts are valid?

The fact is, and this is cold hard fact, neither of us can prove our case. That is the problem. We have an unobservable system that cannot answer the challenge that it might be subject to manipulation. It can’t demonstrate that it is not rigged. Exit polls are just a tool that we use to look at it and say, Well folks, there might be something to dig deeper into here. The problem is virtually never is anyone allowed to dig deeper. We have optical scanner equipment all over this country right now that have the voter marked ballots that drop through the optical-scan reader device and sit in their cabinet below. Those voter marked ballots need to be saved 22 months in theory, although they’ve been destroyed early, in fact, in many cases, especially if when there was an investigation going on in Ohio.

You have these voter marked ballots that would have probably not been destroyed within two days of the election and they’re there. They theoretically could be exhumed and examined. You could go machine by machine, you could look at them in public and you could compare them with machine counts, then you could reconcile those machine counts with the central tabulator. County counts, and state counts … You could say, Yes, this was a valid election or no, this was not a valid election. We had a problem. Might have been fraud, might have been a glitch, we don’t know. The fact is, nobody has access to those ballots. They are corporate property. They are off limits to public inspection. It might as well, in the 99.9% of cases, be a paperless touchscreen that has no record whatsoever.

The fact is, we are denied, when I saw we, the candidates, the public, very often election administrators, by the rules of their states, are denied access to the actual hard evidence we call it, that would allow a determination of whether the election has been accurately counted or perhaps has been illegitimately counted and manipulated. As a matter of fact, in quite a few states and usually under Republican control, but the Democrats have not been tremendously cooperative about this either. The trend has been for ballots to be removed from public record status so that they are no longer susceptible to four-year requests and similar public information requests, Freedom of Information Act requests. They are getting less transparent, not more so….Read the Rest Here…

InfoWorld – “Every independently audited voting computer has been shown to contain numerous, basic, easy-to-exploit vulnerabilities. A fresh report from the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology puts it succinctly: “Voter machines, technically, are so riddled with vulnerabilities that even an upstart script kiddie could wreak havoc.” In 2012, white hat hacker Roger Johnston explained to Popular Sciencehow a voting computer’s votes could be changed for less than $10 worth of RadioShack hardware.”

Here is a Tutorial on how to hack a particular manufacturer’s machine. ALL of the electronic voting machines are vulnerable. All of the scanners are vulnerable. The database which draws up the votes at the national level is vulnerable.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: