Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
Electronic voting via ‘black box” is the easiest and most tempting at hacking and distorting the outcome. The election in 2000 proved that. So much so that one witness, MIchael Connel was murdered to cover up the fact.
These black box voting machines are less secure than a Gameboy or XBox. For all intents and purposes black box voting was created and set up deliberately to hack election results.
Free elections? Don’t make me laugh.
America is rushing head on to a police state and it appears there’s not much we can do to stop it. The Owners are now actively engaged in a war on the American people.
John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute latest book, Battlefield America: The War On the American People,
discusses this at great length.
We are now at war. Not with the Russians but with the hidden secret shadow government seeking to implement its final act of turning America into a fascist police security state.
I do not foresee a way to vote our way out of this.
God these elections are a fricken joke!
So a fat repulsive orange guy whines throughout that the results will be rigged.. and lo and behold it turns out the results were rigged, but for his benefit.
You really couldn’t make it up.
I don’t believe in ‘tit for tat’…. No one deserves to have an election stolen from them by fraud or whatever…. However, the stakes being highest… requires that the any group of analyst’s credibility, veracity ….and integrity be universally acknowledged to be highest as well.
Last time the lemmings adopted democracy they all went over a cliff.
‘Democracy are two wolves and a lamb debating on what to have for lunch. Liberty is the lamb contesting the vote with a loaded gun.” Benjamin Franklin.
Wow! Finally “a group of brave scientists” recognizes that where may be a scientific proof to something related to politics! So why don’t they start showing how it works by applying their discovery to no less significant events starting , say, from 09.11.2001 ? Otherwise they’ll have to enrich their academic vocabulary with definitions of “selective statistics”, “paid variables”, “untouchable equations”, and so forth. And if they do start digging, by the time they get to 2016 elections the “pattern of all patterns” will be so clear that it’d inevitably work against their current protégée instead of in her favor.
Don’t you think people who experience authority as threatening, would tend to regard polls with a certain amount of skepticism? The presence of such skepticism among the voters would then cause a deviation of the described type. The direction and magnitude of the deviation would indicate the object and degree of the voters’ fear.
Kaho: If the recount investigation shows (foreign) election computer rigging, then the exit polls were correct; and the hacked election computer vote counts were WRONG. Also what you say above.
Electronic voting machines can easily create a file where each vote is recorded together with a time stamp in real time. In that way anonymity will be gone. A tiny little software subroutine could easily accomplish this. If people so easily accept rigable systems, then they should not complain afterwards. If «russians» had access to the voting machines via the internet, then the organizers are to blame, since they are the ones who opened up the system to outside influence : Like a traitor who secretly lowers the bridge to the castle and lets the enemy enter. You would then soon have an international hacker’s market, where the highest bidder wins the election.
I am not going to debate whether or not or even how this election was rigged. But this issue sure looks like it will continue well into the future until people demand to use paper ballots – this can be done by registering to vote absentee. Even then, it is possible for your vote to be miscounted, but at least it doesn’t go through a computer that is owned be a corporation that has given money to candidates and is vulnerable to being hacked.
Does this article fall under the category in which Mr Duff said regarding 40% of content published on VT?
MHL: The above article excerpt is from New York Magazine, based on scientific studies of what happened. Publishing classified U.S. intel sometimes REQUIRES Duff’s VT stories to be somewhat inaccurate. The above story is public source info — not classified. So, you can read it. Again (or for the first time). ;-).
Mikey: Read the article. If you can’t read, ask your Mom to read it to you.
Trump lost in Exit Polls in key Electoral College states (FL, NC, PA & WI). In the states in question (above), Trump won “bigly” in those counties with electronic voting machines with no audit trail. Q.E.D. (for now).
P.S. If winning “by landslide” means losing by 2+ million votes, then yes, he “won.” Hillary is bad, but Trump is worse — especially if Trump, Bibi & Russians hacked & stole the election. More proof needed.
Gordon Duff wrote that 40 percent of the raw intel received by VT was false, not 40 percent of what VT publishes is false.
What percentage of that 40 percent slips through the vetting process, and how much real information is withheld because it cannot be vetted, is of course unknown.
It would be very good if Ms. Clinton does get a recount. Not because any right thinking person would want a harpie in the White House (any more than the grotesque creature presently declared winner) but to test and hopefully put to rest the competing claims about the validity of elections.
EA: Yes. Hillary is bad, but Trump is worse — especially if Trump & foreign intel stole the election.
Comments are closed.