Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label recount. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recount. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Evidence Building That Trump Was Right!


OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE PROVES TRUMP RIGHT ABOUT MASSIVE VOTER/ELECTION FRAUD

Dems are publicly organizing illegals and others to vote fraudulently - & repeatedly!

37
22

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Those opposing vigorous and truthful examination of voter fraud in the United States are advancing a narrative asserting there is “no proof of voter fraud” in recent years.
This past weekend, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said on CNN’s “State of the Nation” program that he does not want to spend federal funds to investigate President Trump’s claims of massive voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election because “there’s no evidence that [election fraud] occurred in such a significant number that it could have changed the presidential election.”
While McConnell may be right, there is evidence that would suggest voter fraud prevented Trump from winning the popular vote, as well as the electoral vote.
Democratic Party operatives and their supporters in the Democratic Party-sympathetic main stream media originally crafted and advanced this meme in a transparent effort to ward off all responsible efforts to enact the type of Voter ID laws that would largely rule out or dramatically reduce the possibility of systematic Democratic Party voter fraud.
Today, while no American can board an airplane today without showing TSA employees a valid government-issued ID, the far-left screams “voter suppression” and brings lawyers affiliated with the Democratic Party to court to litigate every time efforts are made to pass voter ID laws.
A truthful examination provides ample evidence President Trump is right in asserting Democratic Party fraud accounts for between 3 to 5 million illegal votes to be cast, enough to cost him the popular vote.
In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton with 65,853,625 votes won the popular vote by some three million over Donald Trump, who got 62,985,105 votes.  The three million vote margin needed to have swung the popular vote victory to Trump could have been obtained had Democratic Party fraud amounted to only 2.5 percent of the total votes cast.
While the Washington Post, in an article published on Dec. 1, 2016, claimed that there were just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election, the newspaper restricted its “proof” to only those cases in which someone was caught and faced possible criminal prosecution after being caught voting twice, voting illegally as a non-citizen or a criminal felon or voting for someone already deceased.
The available voter fraud evidence suggests voter fraud in precincts controlled by the Democrats around the country could easily top 2.5 percent of the total votes cast, provided we do not restrict, as the Washington Post did, the “evidence of voter fraud” to cases where fraudulent voters are caught.
The issue of voter fraud, properly stated, involves the type of systematic Democratic Party fraud that eludes detection precisely because Democratic Party politicians and election officials take active steps to encourage illegal voting that they have no intention of reporting, investigating or prosecuting.
Truthfully, we need look no further than the 2016 Michigan recount demanded by Green Party candidate Jill Stein find clear evidence of systematic Democratic Party voting fraud.
2016 Michigan recount finds voter fraud in Detroit
In the Michigan recount, instead of swinging the election to Clinton, the recount found evidence of massive voter fraud in Wayne County, pointing to Democratic Party voter fraud in Detroit, where Michigan’s largest city in Michigan’s largest county had voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, as noted by Roger Stone in his recent book, Making of the President 2016, on pages 296-298.
Stone reported voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes that the number of people recorded having voted.
Overall, state records showed 10.6 percent of the precincts in the state’s 22 counties could not be recounted because Michigan state law bars recounts for unbroken precincts or precincts submitting ballot boxes with broken seals.
The Detroit news reported the problems were the worst in Detroit where officials could not recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60 percent of the total, with two-thirds of these precincts having too many votes.
The newspaper further noted Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly prevailed in Democratic-controlled Detroit, while Republican President-elect Donald Trump won Michigan by only 10,704 votes, or by 47.5 percent to 47.3 percent.
The voting fraud found in Detroit as a result of the 2016 Michigan recount suggests recounts in the Democratic-controlled precincts in other rust-belt cities, including, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, as well Newark, New Jersey, bear rigorous recount investigations to see if similar patterns of Democratic Party voting fraud can be validated.
A study published by the Pew Center on the States in February 2012, entitled “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgraded,” documented that approximately 24 million – one of every eight – voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate, with more than 1.8 million deceased individuals listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people with registrations in more than one state.”
While the Pew Center on the States does not prove that voter fraud caused someone to vote for all the deceased on voter registration rolls, or that a large proportion of those registered in more than one state voted in more than one state, the 2016 presidential election provides evidence Democrats in various states have exploited registration problems that could be solved with a Voter ID system at the center of rigorous enforcement of voting laws throughout the United States.
The lack of rigor in U.S. voting registration rolls is unlikely to be rectified as long as the Democratic Party resists every and all efforts to enact for voting the type of Voter ID laws that the TSA demands for those seeking to board commercial aircraft in the United States.
Non-citizens and felons vote
In 2016, an investigation in Virginia by the public Interest Legal Foundation, PILF, and the Virginia Voter’s Alliance, VVA, showed that in a small sample of the eight Virginia counties responding to the investigators’ public inspection requests, 1046 illegal aliens were found registered to vote.
“The problem is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia localities,” the Virginia investigators concluded. “Even in this small sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before they were removed from the rolls. Each one of them is likely a felony.”
In 2016, Virginia’s Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe, a long-time Clinton associate, cleared 13,000 Virginia felons to vote in the presidential election, after the State’s Supreme Court struck down his earlier “sweeping order” automatically restoring many felons’ voting rights in a move that would have provided clearance for some 206,000 Virginia felons to vote, despite their criminal records as murders, rapists, sex offenders, kidnappers, child abusers, arsonists, drug traffickers, and other dangerous criminals, as noted by Breitbart in an article published on Aug. 22, 1016.
In April 2015, McAuliffe vetoed House Bill 1315, a state law that would have required jury commissioners to retain individuals not qualified to serve as jurors for reasons that would also disqualify them from voting, including finding out that a prospective juror was not a citizen of the United States.
In August 2011, the Fairfax County Electoral Board notified the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, as well as the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department in Washington, of possible voter fraud by non-citizens.
An Electoral Board study conducted in conjunction with the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles discovered that 278 registered voters, when they got their drivers licenses, admitted they were not U.S. citizens.  Almost half of them, 117, were subsequently found to have registered to vote and to have voted in Virginia.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation studied a case where 86 non-citizens registered to vote in Philadelphia since 2013, with almost half (46) known to have voted in at least one recent election, asked for their names to be removed from voter registrations.
“This is just the tip of iceberg,” concluded Joseph Vanderhulst, an attorney with the foundation. “Who knows how may are on and don’t ask to be taken off.”  Research indicated Philadelphia makes no effort to proactively remove from voter registration rolls non-citizens or incarcerated felons that are ineligible to vote under Pennsylvania law.
“Election fraud, whether it’s phony voter registrations illegal absentee ballots, shady recounts or old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing, can be found in every part of the United States, although it is probably spreading because of the ever-so-tight divisions that have polarized the country and created so many close elections lately,” concluded journalist John Fund in his 2004 book entitled “Stealing Elections.”
Project Veritas documents Democratic Party voter fraud
In my 2012 book examining the 2012 presidential elections entitled “What Went Wrong?”  I found a series of undercover voters taken by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas were particularly damaging to Democrats claiming there is no proof of voter fraud.
O’Keefe’s videos showed Democratic Party campaign workers and volunteers being willing to advise voters how to commit voter fraud, including how to register and vote in more than one state. The videos also demonstrate how difficult it is to get your name removed from the voter registration rolls after you have moved, and how easy it is to get an absentee ballot to vote in a second state, even if the second state is registered in a different name than the person’s current legal name.
One video demonstrated states like North Carolina that do not require voter ID how easy it was for illegal immigrants non-citizens to vote, or for persons to vote after showing up at a voting poll after stealing the identity of registered voters who are dead. Also exposed by O’Keefe’s undercover video cameras were students voting for Obama in the state where they were attending college, as well as voting by absentee ballot in their home state.
A clear point of O’Keefe’s videos is that early voting statutes provide ample time to explore and implement voter fraud statutes.  O’Keefe exposed judges and state voting officials who imposed lax voter registration processes because the favored the type of “open election” procedures favored by Democrats who charge voter ID laws are racist by-nature, supported and enacted by Republicans who want to suppress the votes of African-Americans and Hispanics.
O’Keefe’s videos caught salaried employees of the DNC working for the Obama campaign in Organizing for America offices advising undercover Project Veritas reporters on how to vote twice, including in more than one state – clearly demonstrating the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign were engaging in voter fraud in 2012.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Will Recounts Change The Outcome?


Recount on the way amid hacking fears, questions about electronic votes

Lulu Chang
Digital Trends

hillary clinton challenge results

hillary clinton challenge results
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has raised the $2.5 million dollars necessary to initiate a recount in key swing states — after computer scientists and election lawyers revealed “persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.”
“Over the last 48-72 hours, reports have come in from experts, cyberexperts, who are reporting to us some very troubling news about the possibility of security breaches in voting results across this country,” Stein campaign manager David Cobb said in a video posted Wednesday to Facebook. The Green party will launch recount efforts in the next few days; filing dates for recounts are immediate — as soon as Friday, he said.
Stein and the Green Party have raised more than $3.4 million dollars as of early Thursday morning, per the group’s fundraising site.
The researchers, including prominent names like voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Computer Security and Society J. Alex Halderman, described two possible scenarios. In one, electronic voting machines are simply off — “systematically wrong,” Halderman said. Researchers noted significantly fewer votes for Hillary Clinton from electronic machines than in nearby counties with paper ballots.
Beyond that lies the potential for hackers to have targeted the machines, a potential given concerns throughout the election cycle that Russians were involved in various efforts to hack servers and influence voters.
“Could anyone be brazen enough to try such an attack?” he asked in a Medium post on Wednesday. “A few years ago, I might have said that sounds like science fiction, but 2016 has seen unprecedented cyberattacks aimed at interfering with the election.”
Clinton is already ahead in the election by over 2 million popular votes — but the U.S. election is decided by the Electoral College, not by the popular vote.
This is by no means the first time that concerns over hacking have emerged this election cycle. Before November 8, Trump himself constantly remarked on the “rigged” system, and in the weeks leading up to Election Day, reports surfaced that the voter registration systems of more than 20 states may have been hacked. However, to suggest that the results of the election may indeed have been affected by such activity is a novel development.
As New York Magazine reported, researchers informed Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias of potential discrepancies last Thursday, noting 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.”
No one has yet found definitive evidence of either hacking or manipulation. Rather, much of the suspicion arises from questionable patterns that experts argue require a third-party review. But would it actually be enough to overturn the results? Presently, Trump has 290 Electoral College votes, whereas Clinton has 232. Michigan and its 16 votes have yet to be awarded because the race remains too close to call. If the results in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were reversed (for a total of 30 votes), and Clinton were to win Michigan, then she would have the necessary 270 votes.
“I’m interested in verifying the vote,” Dr. Barbara Simons, an adviser to the U.S. election assistance commission and expert on electronic voting, told the Guardian. “We need to have post-election ballot audits.”
Currently, no state is actually planning to cross check electronic results against paper records, Halderman said.
“Examining the physical evidence in these states — even if it finds nothing amiss — will help allay doubt and give voters justified confidence that the results are accurate.”
Updated 11/24/2016 by Jeremy Kaplan: Added news of recount plans by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Could A Recount Upset Trump's Apple Cart?



Stein raises enough money to request recounts in three states




Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is calling for a recount in three key states; Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
PAT GREENHOUSE/GLOBE STAFF
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is calling for a recount in three key states; Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein on Wednesday called for a recount in three key states — Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — and appeared to quickly raise more than the $2.2 million her campaign said was needed to pay for the recounts.
“After a divisive and painful presidential race, in which foreign agents hacked into party databases, private email servers, and voter databases in certain states, many Americans are wondering if our election results are reliable,” Stein said in a statement on her campaign website.

“That’s why the unexpected results of the election and reported anomalies need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust.”
The fundraising effort sought to collect at least $2.2 million, which Stein’s campaign said would be enough to pay for costs associated with filing for recounts. It sought to raise the money by 4 p.m. central time Friday, or one hour before the deadline to request a recount in Wisconsin, which has the earliest deadline of the three states.
Get Fast Forward in your inbox:
Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.
As of about 1:30 a.m. Thursday — just several hours after the announcement — it had raised more than $2.36 million, according to a regularly-updating tally on the fundraising website.



On Twitter, #Recount2016 and “Jill Stein” were trending.
The fundraising website said that the state-level Green Parties in Massachusetts and Ohio were also accepting contributions “to kickstart the recount initiative.”

The effort by Stein, of Lexington, Mass., comes after a report Tuesday evening by New York magazine that said that a group of activists, including computer scientists and election lawyers, were urging Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to call for a recount in those same three states.
But one of the main figures named in the report has since said the article was inaccurate and included “some incorrect numbers.” Two of the three states have defended their procedures.
Stein’s campaign said on the fundraising website that their push for recounts were “not intended to help Hillary Clinton.”
“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 website said.
In a video posted on Stein’s Facebook page Wednesday afternoon, her campaign manager, David Cobb, outlined the cost and deadlines to file for recounts in each state.
He said that about $1.1 million would be needed to file for a recount in Wisconsin, where the deadline is Friday; another $500,000 would be needed for Pennsylvania, where the deadline is Monday; and $600,000 more would be needed by Wednesday for a recount in Michigan.
Recount rules vary by state, but generally states only cover costs for automatic recounts, or ones triggered when election results are within a specified, close margin.
Otherwise, the candidate or party that petitions the recount must first pay a deposit toward the cost of conducting the recount, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The deposit is refunded if the recount reverses the election results. If not, the petitioner has to pay for most of the costs associated with the recount.
The Stein campaign said that any recount would involve additional expenses beyond the money needed to file, including attorney fees and the costs of statewide recount observers that could bring the total tab to between $6 million and $7 million.
The fundraising website site also said, “We cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states.”
Cobb said unused money that’s raised would go toward “election integrity efforts.”
He said the effort is not about trying to change the election results, unless a recount finds that the results were wrong.
In the video, Cobb did not directly cite the New York magazine report, but did name an election integrity lawyer from Ohio who he said “helped alert us to this problem and where we should go.”
Cobb also said: “Over the last 48 to 72 hours, reports have come in from cyber experts, from forensic experts, and others who are reporting to us some very troubling news about the possibility of security breaches in voting results across this country in this past election cycle ... The experts are telling us that it’s worthy of investigating these three states.”
“The reason that we’re doing this is that we do not have confidence in the integrity of election results themselves,” he said.
The fundraising website, meanwhile, said that, “election integrity experts have independently identified Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states where ‘statistical anomalies’ raised concerns,” and that in each of those states, “data suggests a significant need to verify machine-counted vote total.”
Clinton won the popular vote but lost to Republican Donald J. Trump in the Electoral College, which decides the presidency.
The New York magazine article reported that activists had claimed to have found data — but no proof — showing that results may have been “manipulated or hacked” in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — three states where Clinton lost by just a narrow margin.
But one of the computer scientists, J. Alex Halderman, a computer science professor from the University of Michigan, said in a blog post Wednesday morning that the magazine’s article was inaccurate.
“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked,” Halderman wrote.
The New York magazine story said that the activist group had presented Clinton’s campaign with “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.”
But Reid Magney, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, in an e-mail to the Globe Wednesday morning, said officials there were “unaware of any attempts to hack Wisconsin’s voting equipment or the vote-tabulating process.”
“Most all of the stuff we’re seeing on Twitter and other sites questioning the results is based on unofficial results which contain some errors that have been corrected by the county boards of canvass,” said Magney.
“These sorts of analysis that depend on comparing exit polls to unofficial or official election results are fraught with problems,” he added. “People lie to exit pollsters.”
He also said the activists’ “characterization of which counties use electronic voting equipment versus paper ballots is incorrect or incomplete.”
“In Wisconsin, about 85 percent of all ballots cast are paper ballots (80 percent tabulated by optical scanners, 5 percent counted by hand) and about 10 percent are touch-screen machines that have a voter-verified paper audit trail,” Magney said. “The federal standard for electronic voting equipment accuracy is 1 error in 500,000 ballots. Our previous audits have never found that level of error in any voting system used in the state.”
A spokesman for the Michigan Secretary of State’s office, Fred Woodhams, in an e-mail to the Globe said: “Michigan exclusively uses optical-scan paper ballot voting systems so I’m uncertain how researchers could have found differences between Michigan counties that supposedly use different voting systems.”
Pennsylvania Department of State spokeswoman Wanda Murren told the Globe in an e-mail that officials there were aware of the New York magazine report but declined to comment, noting the deadline to contest the results has not passed.