Hillary Clinton Delegate Will Oversee A New York Primary Election Audit

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer announced his office will audit the city’s Board of Elections after reported voter disenfranchisement during Tuesday’s primary. “If we find issues that would call on me to recuse myself, I will,” he told BuzzFeed News.

posted on Apr. 20, 2016, at 4:35 p.m.

Talal Ansari

BuzzFeed News Reporter

https://www.buzzfeed.com/talalansari/hillary-clinton-delegate-will-oversee-a-new-york-primary-ele#.mtl1PXZ7v

New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer in 2014. Jason Carter Rinaldi / Getty Images

The New York City comptroller, who is auditing the local Board of Elections after reports of voting issues in Tuesday’s primary election, is also a Democratic delegate for Hillary Clinton.
Scott M. Stringer wrote a letter yesterday to Michael Ryan, the executive director of the New York City Board of Elections, informing him of the audit. The letter cited reports of voters purged from voting lists, closed polling stations, and broken machines, among other issues.
Stringer expressed “deep concern over widespread reports of poll site problems and irregularities” in the letter. New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman also said Wednesday he was opening an investigation into the board.
Stringer also on Tuesday won a Democratic national delegate position in the 10th Congressional District — which covers the West Side of Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn — and is supporting Clinton. Stringer received 10.31% of the vote — more than any other delegate in the district, according to the latest election results.
In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Stringer said he understands how some “disenfranchised” voters will see his office’s audit as a potential conflict of interest.
“I understand that people will feel that this process disenfranchised them, and will be suspicious of anybody who is also part of the political establishment,” Stringer said.
“I’m not auditing the election results. We are auditing the management of the agency that conducts the elections,” Stringer said, referencing the Board of Elections.
“Our audits are above politics,” he added, saying that a separate bureau and staff would conduct the investigation.
“If we find issues that would call on me to recuse myself, I will,” Stringer added.
Ryan, speaking to a local Fox affiliate on Wednesday, said, “no one was disenfranchised.” The Sanders and Clinton campaigns did not immediately respond to requests for comment. New York City’s Board of Elections did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Dick Dadey, executive director of the Citizens Union, a nonpartisan good governance group, said he doesn’t believe that Stringer’s position as a Clinton delegate would influence his audit.
“Elected officials have many connections to other elected officials, as well as responsibilities as public officials, so there are always connections. That does not necessarily mean it rises to a conflict of interest,” Dadey said.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio — who endorsed Hillary Clinton in October 2015 — also issued a statement Tuesday condemning the purge of voters from voting lists and added his support for the comptroller’s audit.
“It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that the voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists,” de Blasio said in his statement. “The perception that numerous voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process and must be fixed.”
By Tuesday evening, Schneiderman’s voter hotline received over 560 calls and 140 emails citing problems at the polls. During 2012’s general election, the Attorney General received 150 total complaints.
On Wednesday, Schneiderman tweeted a screenshot of a statement announcing that his office will also open an investigation “into alleged improprieties in yesterday’s voting by the New York City Board of Elections.”
At a rally in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Bernie Sanders criticized the voting issues, referencing Brooklyn, where WNYC reported more than 120,000 Democratic voters were dropped from voting lists.
“It is absurd that in Brooklyn, New York — where I was born, actually — tens of thousands of people as I understand it, have been purged from the voting rolls,” Sanders said.

Must-Watch: How the 2016 Election Is Being Stolen

Sure, electronic vote fraud is easy as pie. And see this.
But top investigative reporter Greg Palast talks about how the election is being stolen the old fashion way:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/must-watch-2016-election-stolen.html

Is The GOP Risking Suicide?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/19/2016 17:40 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-19/gop-risking-suicide
Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,
Donald Trump has brought out the largest crowds in the history of primaries. He has won the most victories, the most delegates, the most votes. He is poised to sweep three of the five largest states in the nation - New York, Pennsylvania and California.
If he does, and the nomination is taken from him, the Republican Party will be seen by the American people as a glorified Chinese tong.
Last week, Ted Cruz swept 34 delegates at the Colorado party convention. Attendees were not allowed to vote on whom they wanted as the party’s nominee.
This weekend, Cruz shut out Trump in Wyoming the same way.
What does this tell us? Cruz has a better “ground game.” His operatives work the system better. Ted Cruz is the king of small ball.
But having gone head-to-head in some 30 primaries and caucuses, Cruz has fallen millions of votes behind Trump, and will fall millions further behind after New York, Pennsylvania and California.
Cruz will soon join John Kasich in being mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination on the first ballot. His fallback strategy is to keep Trump just short of the 1,237 votes needed for victory on the first ballot, and then steal the nomination on the second.
How? Poaching and pilfering. In state after state, he is getting Cruz loyalists elected as Trump delegates. After casting an obligatory vote for Trump on the first ballot, the turncoats will go over the hill and vote for Cruz on the second ballot.
Faithless delegates are preparing to switch to give Ted Cruz a nomination that he could not persuade Republican voters to confer upon him.
Like the 1919 World Series, the fix is in.
The rules are the rules, says Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus in defense of what went down in Colorado and Wyoming.

Priebus is correct. The rules are the rules. But what is also true is that the rules have been and are being manipulated by party elites to frustrate the expressed will of a Republican electorate, and to impose a nominee other then the clear winner of the primaries.
Republican elites are engaged in a conspiracy to frustrate and overturn the democratic decision of the Republican electorate.
Prediction: If Trump sweeps the remaining major primaries, comes to Cleveland with millions more votes than any other candidate, and then has the nomination stolen from him, the Grand Old Party will be committing hara-kiri on worldwide TV.
This political race ranks among the most exciting in American history. Seventeen Republicans entered the lists last summer in what party officials hailed as “the strongest Republican field since 1980.”
Then Trump came down the escalator, took them on, and bested them all. Can Republican Party elites think they will be celebrated if they substitute their wants for the will of the voters?
A Cruz nomination would be like taking the gold medal away from the man who won it, and handing it to a runner-up. The GOP elites would be about as popular as those Olympic boxing judges in South Korea.
The deeper problem here is the refusal of party elites to realize that the world has changed.
The Bush dynasty is done. Jeb Bush, the Prince of Wales, understands this. He will not be going to Cleveland.
The primaries have starkly revealed that a new era is upon us.
Even the neocons, the dominant element among the 121 foreign policy experts who declared in an open letter that they will never work for a President Trump, testify to this.
They see Trump’s victories as a repudiation of their legacy, and a Trump presidency as the end of their post-Cold War ascendancy.
And given the disasters they have produced for America, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya and Yemen, the nation would be well rid of them.
Indeed, Trump’s victories, and the energies he has unleashed, are due, not only to his outsized persona but to his issues.
People believe Trump will secure the borders, halt the invasion, embrace tariff and trade policies to reduce imports, and restart the production of goods, Made in the USA, by and for Americans.
In his first inaugural, Woodrow Wilson said, “The success of a party means little except when the Nation is using that party for a large and definite purpose.”
Bush Republicans saw their “large and definite purpose” as creating a “New World Order” and “ending tyranny in our world.”
Trump seems to see repairing, rebuilding and restoring America to greatness as the “large and definite purpose” of the party he would lead. And a new emerging Republican majority seems to agree.
If Trump had been routed, as first expected, then his message could rightly have been regarded as outside the mainstream. But Republican voters rallied to the issues he raised.
To either ignore the clear instructions of its electorate, or renounce their chosen messenger, would be for the Republican Party to forfeit its future, and cling to a discredited and dead past.

Something Is Going Seriously Wrong with New York Voter Registrations

Rosette Newcomb | April 17, 2016
http://usuncut.com/politics/something-amiss-new-york/ 
New York’s Democratic primary is starting to look an awful lot like the Arizona primary.
Hundreds of voters, most of them registered with the Democratic Party, are filing a class-action lawsuit against the New York State Board of Elections on Monday morning, claiming their voter registration was changed to “independent” or “no affiliation” without their consent.
In closed primary states like New York, voters who are not registered as Democrats or Republicans can’t vote in those primaries. Voters identifying as independents wishing to vote in the Democratic primary had to change their registration to Democrat by October of 2015 — the earliest registration deadline in the country.
This is almost exactly what happened in Arizona, when voters who had been eager to vote in the Democratic primary learned upon arrival to their designated polling place that their registration had been changed, making them ineligible to vote. In conducting their own investigation of what exactly happened in Arizona, hacktivist collective Anonymous discovered that Arizona kept voter information on an SQL database, which is so easy to hack a 3-year-old can do it. In fact, a white hat hacker discovered a database of 191 million voter registrations last year, which may mean that other, more nefarious hackers have accessed that information as well.
At a public hearing over the multiple irregularities at the Arizona primary, Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan publicly stated that party affiliation for many voters was changed at the last minute, and she has yet to find out how or why. The Justice Department has begun an official investigation, and the Democratic National Committee, along with the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaigns, have sued the state of Arizona over alleged voter suppression.
New York voters angry about the mysterious change in their party affiliation have taken to a Facebook group titled “Voters whose registration was changed without their knowledge in NY” to share their horror stories. Shelly Berry discovered that someone had changed her voter registration in 2012, even forging her signature on the document:

Two different signatures for Shelly Berry’s New York voter registration, photo from Facebook

Today I went to the board of elections to find out why my voter registration was switched from democrat to unaffiliated without my knowledge or consent. The man there said I had applied to be changed to no party affiliation in 2012. I said that was absolutely false and never sent in such a form. I had him print the 2012 form and then had him print two additional forms, two which I know I filled out myself. Both forms I filled out myself had “democrat” checked. The one from 2012 is a FRAUDULENT form which is NOT in my handwriting and has a forged, completely wrong looking signature on it.

Philip Kathrens, another member of the group, said state election officials mistakenly selected “Democratic” for his party affiliation. Since Kathrens wanted to vote in the 2016 Democratic primary, he assumed his registration was still with the Democratic Party, but recently found out his registration was changed to “Other” without his knowledge:

Philip Kathrens’ current voter registration (top) and his 2012 voter registration (bottom). Photo from Facebook

I originally selected “socialist” on my registration in 2012. When my card came I was pissed that they had placed me in the “Democratic” party. This is why I know I was registered as a democrat. I never changed it, figuring that they only placed people in 1 of the 2 parties. Flash forward to a month ago, I started hearing about the things going on and double checked my registration. Suddenly it was “Other”.

The party affiliation barrier these voters are struggling with will undoubtedly play a role in the New York primary on Tuesday. Some advocates are calling for New York to open its primary to independent voters to avoid disenfranchising thousands of voters.
Over 7,000 people have signed a petition calling on U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to urge the New York Democratic Party to open its primary up to independent voters. Schumer himself wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling for primary reform in 2014.
“If the primary were open, this would be a non-issue for thousands of registered voters that have had this happen to them,” said Shyla Nelson, spokeswoman for Election Justice U.S.A. in an interview with the New York Daily News. “By making the primary open, it eliminates one of the most vexing problems New Yorkers have dealt with in this primary season.”

Arizona: Hillary Clinton’s Election Fraud Masterpiece (or how elections are rigged in the U.S.)

The Clinton machine used brazen voter suppression and election fraud to steal Arizona

Rudy Panko

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/arizona-hillary-clintons-election-fraud-masterpiece/ri13524

Vote early and often

She stole Iowa, Nevada and Massachusetts – but Arizona is Hillary Clinton’s election fraud masterpiece.
Desperate to prevent another “Michigan upset”, Hillary found an ingenious way to guarantee victory in Arizona.
The key to Clinton’s strategy in Arizona was early voting. In Arizona, around 70% of voters cast their ballot by mail. Why is this important? Because

of the 297,714 voters who have already cast their ballots—174,706 were female, 59 percent of the total early Democratic vote. The breakdown of early Democratic voters by gender and age is shown below. The early vote by women is dominated by older age groups. Voters under 30 account for only 7 percent of Democratic early voters compared to 41 percent for the over 65 crowd. The large number of women, particularly older women, who have already cast Democratic ballots, is a good sign for Hillary Clinton.

In other words, the elderly (see: Clinton supporters) make up the vast majority of early voters in Arizona.
Hillary's plan to steal Arizona was remarkably simple: Suppress voting on election day, and rely on her large lead with early voters to secure a win.
It was a perfectly executed heist. Here’s how she did it:

1. Drastically reduce the number of polling locations to make voting nearly impossible

For starters, polling places were almost non-existent:

As reported by The Arizona Republic’s Mary Jo Pitzl, Maricopa County reduced the number of polling places from more than the 200 available for the 2012 presidential election to…60.
Sixty? Are you kidding me.
The fact that a voter could go to any polling place didn’t matter much when the lines were so long that many people were forced to abandon the line.
I’ve heard from a number of those who stood outside and waited, and waited, and waited.
One of them, Todd Johnson wrote in part, “I was in one of those long lines -- from 4 p.m. to just about 6:40.  As we stood, the line just got longer…I saw motivated voters, some with children, trying to fulfill their civic duties. The poll workers were exhausted. The line had been there since 5 in the a.m. and the line only grew in length.  My estimate is that if someone were to join before the 7 p.m. cutoff they were looking at a four-hour wait.  Call these county officials out!”
Done.
Officials apparently believed that so many of us utilize the mail-in early-voting ballots that there is less demand for in-person voting locations.
Wrong.

Yeah, why would at least 30% of eligible voters feel the need to vote? What is this, some sort of "democracy"?

So far, so good.
2. Declare Hillary the winner while people are still standing in line and less than 1% of the vote is counted
This is cute:

Yes, the media called the election for Clinton with less than 1% of the vote counted and thousands of people still waiting in line to cast their ballot. Even four hours after polling stations closed, hundreds of people were still waiting in line:

More than four hours after polling places closed, hundred of people were still in line to vote at the Salvation Army office on Third Avenue in downtown Phoenix.
Aracely Calderon, 56, was the last person to get in line in time to vote at the site.
She made it just seconds before a volunteer began enforcing the site's closing shortly after 7 p.m.
When Calderon arrived, the line spanned more than 700 people and almost 4 blocks.

And it gets worse.
3. Thousands of voters say their party affiliation was altered or undocumented, preventing them from voting
Arizona has closed primaries, which means that if you aren't registered as a Democrat, you can't vote. As a local news report put it:

Arizona law already effectively disenfranchises 36 percent of registered voters.
These would be voters who are unaffiliated with any political party. Independent. The only way those individuals can vote in a primary is to re-register with a political party. And they have to do so 29 days before the election.
It’s ridiculous to think that 36 percent of Arizona voters -- can’t vote.

But many independents did change their party affiliation, and guess what happened on election day?

Leaders from the Arizona branch of the Democratic Party have confirmed that its lawyers are officially making an inquiry after multiple Democratic voters showed up to the polls only to find that they were listed as independents, Republicans, or had no party affiliation at all.
Many voters wound up having to wait in line under the hot Arizona sun only to find that they were ineligible to vote for the candidates of their choice. To add insult to injury, the polling locations have been so poorly planned that many voters had to wait in line up to four hours before finding out that their information had been improperly filed.

And just to be clear: We're not talking about a few isolated incidents. Every corner of the Internet is full of stories from people who tried to vote and were turned away:

And there's plenty of video evidence as well:

I posted earlier about my being denied my legal right to vote this morning. I went to the Pima County Recorders office and video taped the whole thing. Here's what they are doing. They are copying voter registration cards changing the date and the party preference. They can't change the original because that goes out to the party. At first she tried to say I sent in a second voter registration card (of course I didn't not) then she changes her story to its a computer glitch then states it's an error.

This "error" also benefits Clinton tremendously:

People don't fully understand just how easy it is to write a database script to modify large sets of data in a matter of seconds or less.
Search for independent voters that have recently changed to dem, randomly select a % of them to be changed to lower the delegate loss and still seem on the books so they could tout it as a resounding victory.
The most-recent official roster has 37 percent (or 1.219 million) of registered Arizona voters declared as independents; 34 percent (or 1.115 million) as Republicans; and 28 percent (or 932,722) as Democrats.
THERE ARE MORE INDEPENDENTS THAN DEMOCRATS. That scared the sh*t out of the Clinton campaign, given Sanders has trounced her with independents in every state.

We're not done yet.
4. A purely coincidental but extremely convenient bomb threat prevented voters from seeking help
As you might expect, plenty of disenfranchised Arizona voters sought assistance from local authorities who could help them clear up problems with their voter registration. Unfortunately, bomb threats prevented many voters from getting the help they needed:

Pima County says the staff at the Recorder's Office was allowed back into the Public Service Center, after it was evacuated at around 5:30 p.m.
According to officials, Tucson Police Department found an item in the garage of the building, located at 240 N. Stone Ave. Due to bomb threat reports received earlier in the day, TPD decided to send its bomb squad to the scene.
TPD said the suspicious item was later found to not be a threat. The staff was allowed back in the building at around 6:35 p.m.
Officials say the area is still closed off.
Pima County said an additional 15 staff members have been added to help the voter help line.

Oh, good. Right in time for the polling stations to close at 7:00 pm.
The Clinton machine really outdid itself this time. Bravo, Hillary.

Over a Million AZ Voters Disenfranchised; Sanders Voters Stand in Long Lines Only to be Denied the Right to Vote; Official Results Appear Flipped/Rigged

 March 22, 2016. Arizona.  Tonight, voters in Arizona, who are continuing to stand in line to vote are angry that the state's Democratic primary has been called for Hillary Clinton when the majority of Bernie Sanders's voters have not been allowed to vote.  As election day began, it was learned that 1.3  million voters who reportedly would have voted for Sanders were disenfranchised from voting in the  Democratic primary.  Additionally, significant numbers of  registered Democratic voters who were told they were not on the Democratic voting lists included long-time Democrats who had voted in the Democratic primaries before  without any problem.   Others who properly switched their party were told they were also not on the list.  At best , these Democratic voters were told, they could vote a provisional ballot which would not be counted today.  

Those who continued to wait in long lines late into the night to vote had to combat discouragement from a corporate media that kept telling their votes wouldn't matter as Clinton had already won.

What is odd is that those reporting they were denied the right to vote were primarily Sanders supporters.  Last weekend, Sanders campaign workers in Arizona were concerned that their voter information database may have been hacked.  This database contained information from voter surveys, showing which specific voters were supporting which Sanders as opposed to Clinton.  The final day, volunteers had to go out with paper lists because of the hacking problem.   Were these extensive lists used to determine which voters would be removed from the voter roles?  Adding to the confusion were the closing of 140 polling locations in Arizona's most populous County, limiting Maricopa residents to 60 polling place.  The long lines favored the leisure class, particularly the top one-percenters, who are favoring Clinton, and disfavored the ninety-nine percenters who the Clinton team doesn't want voting.  It is difficult to expect middle and lower class voters, most of whom backed Bernie Sanders, to take four or more hours off work to vote.  Yet, videos show significant numbers of Sanders supporters did just that.

Writers for the Justice Gazette were in Phoenix on March 21st and conducted their own poll, which showed a probable victory for Bernie Sanders of at least 60 to 40%.  Observers who have engaged in polling and speaking with Arizona voters, say "Impossible" and "Bull...t" to the official numbers which which supposedly include 100% of Maricopa County which had thousands of voters still standing in line with a likely four or more hours to wait as they were told that 100% of the Maricopa results were in and the county had already voted for Clinton.  Voters who actually voted have expressed shock as they do not believe the results either.  Even more in shock are those voters who continue to wait in long lines, hoping that they will be able to vote when they get to the front of the line.  Even if more than a million Arizona voters were not allowed to vote for Sanders, the people of Arizona know he was their popular choice.  The media cannot keep the people from talking to each other.

---

It  is interesting that TylerPedigo.co0 had a projection more in line with that found by the Justice Gazette polling.  The official result is essentially the inversion of both the polling and the projection.  This is all indicative of vote-flipping.  Vote flipping is an easy trick that takes place when the votes for the winning candidate are flipped with the losing candidate.  According to voting software experts, this can be done within one minute without a trace.  A paper trail doesn't stop this as it can be done at the tabulator level or while making the paper trail appear accurate.  Even if the vote was flipped, with the extent of the disenfranchisement and calling of the election while thousands of voters  were waiting in line to vote smacks of election fixing.

Arizonans want their votes counted, not created.  The Arizona Democratic Party, which is biased in favor of Clinton and in favor of the rigged result has promised to look into the matter.  Voters are not holding their breath and many are calling for a new election in which all the votes and not just the Clinton votes are counted.

Suppose only 20% of those disenfranchised or forced to vote provisional ballots for Sanders are added into his total.  That result would  be more consistent with the polling.

When an election is won by rigging and preventing the voters from voting, that is not a victory but a lie.  The Justice Gazette calls for a new election in which all the voters in Arizona can vote or for the forfeiture of Clinton's delegates in that state.

Below are three videos uploaded to Youtube.com by Arizona voters. Two are of the long voting lines with an estimation that it would take until 1 A.M. for voters in the line waiting after the 7 P.M. closing time to vote.  Another video shows one of the voters who was registered to vote in the Democratic primary but who was refused a regular ballot.

 

---

How can an election result in a major loss for the winner?

1) Disenfranchise people trying to vote for the popular candidate --happened today in Arizona.
2) Cut the number of polling places to provide confusion and make it harder for supporters of the popular candidate to vote. --happened today in Arizona.
4) Force voters for the popular candidate to vote provisional instead of regular ballots--happened today in Arizona.
5)Get the news media to call the election before it's over in order to discourage supporters of the popular candidate who are still standing in line waiting to vote--happened this evening in Arizona.

If a determined candidate still doesn't think cheat can cheat the majority of voters out of a victory for her opponent with the above techniques, she can simply have one of her software experts flip the vote.    it doesn't matter if there is a paper-trail as long as the tabulator is a machine.    Watch the video of Hacking Democracy, from Public Interest Pictures, which shows how easy it is to rig tabulators and other voting machines.

Ask yourself, how the news media called the election on 1% of the vote for Hillary Clinton as tens of thousands of Arizonians in the various counties continued to have more than a four hour wait ahead of them to vote. How did they know that those who hadn't yet voted could not vote in a way that would make a difference?   Was the vote being determined by something other than the voters?  If the media calls were honest, why why did the networks wait so long after the end of voting in Idaho and Utah to call those two states where it could not be denied that Sanders won by a landslide?

http://justicegazette.org/az-sanders-wins-real-vote-while-clinton-wins-rigged-count.html

---

Credible Account Says Clinton Is Behind Violent Protests at Trump Rallies

Posted on March 12, 2016 by Eric Zuesse.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/03/credible-account-says-clinton-behind-violent-protests-trump-rallies.html

This concerns the question of the identity of the people who are behind the violent protesters at Donald Trump’s rallies.

There are going to be ad-hominem attacks against me for my reporting this account, which will contradict the myths that both progressives and conservatives hold regarding the U.S. government, but anyone who recognizes that the press to this day hides its having hidden the incontestable fact that George W. Bush knowingly falsified, lied regarding the evidence concerning “Saddam’s WMD,” will at least give this account, and its source, fair and unprejudiced consideration, as being possibly accurate and honest. Sometimes, in order to get to the truth in a case, it’s necessary to rely upon the testimony of people that one considers despicable; the FBI wouldn’t be able to crack many cases otherwise — and, sad to say, neither can I. So: please don’t dismiss me for relying here upon a researcher whom I personally detest — and whom you might likewise detest.

I believe that the libertarian Roger Stone, who is the Republican Party’s most gifted opposition-researcher, after having been Richard Nixon’s most gifted dirty-trickster, and after his having ferreted out the hypocrisy of Eliot Spitzer for paying prostitutes — after, in other words, Stone’s having worked for politicians I despise, and destroyed the careers of ones I admire — is among this nation’s stellar investigative journalists; and I have found, over the years, that, when he reports about dirty tricks, what he has reported is only confirmed, not disconfirmed, as time passes. In other words: though I don’t like the man, and I disagree with his politics, I respect his news-reporting. And, here is what he says, in a rush interview with the ‘conspiracy theorist’ (another libertarian) Alex Jones, on Saturday evening, March 12th, and I think that the entire nation needs to hear Stone’s account, at least to give it consideration. So, here it is:

https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/videos/10153989651258459

My rush transcript of highlights from his rush-interview:

I think everybody in the country has now heard about these violent protests [at Trump rallies] which are being blamed on supporters of Bernie Sanders. … This is a false-flag. These demonstrators are flying under a false banner. They are not Sanders supporters by-and-large. This is an operation directed by supporters of Hillary Clinton, paid for by George Soros and Move-On, by David Brock at Media Matters for America, also funded by Soros, and also by the reclusive billionaire Jonathan Lewis. Now, Lewis was identified by the Miami New Times as a ‘mystery man.’ He inherited roughly a billion dollars from his father Peter Lewis … [founder of Progressive Insurance Company]. Jonathan Lewis interestingly withdrew his support of the Democratic National Committee over the immigration bill that he thought was unfair to gays. In any event, this is a Hillary Clinton operation. The idea here, very clearly, is to divide the Sanders economic voters from Trump; in other words, those voters who lost their jobs because of NAFTA and all of the other globalist international trade-deals that have screwed this country, they now realize that these voters are potentially, when Sanders is out of the race, Trump votes, and this is an effort to make Trump toxic, to disqualify him, [as a] racist, bigot, the whole thing is essentially a hoax. It’s a gambit directed, by the way, by Brock. Brock was once a friend of mine and was a comrade in the fight for freedom; but he went over to the dark side, with the Clintons, for money: big, big, big, money; and this is unfortunately his little dirty trick, Unfortunately, they have leaks within their operation, my sources are of the very best. The entire collaboration in Chicago is a Hillary Clinton operation. And, frankly, I can’t see Bernie Sanders having anything to do with it. I don’t agree with Bernie, but I respect him, and this is not his handiwork or the handiwork of his campaign.

[Jones here goes on to explain why he respects the investigative reports from Stone, then says, “When I saw all these Bernie shirts and Bernie people saying ‘We attack!’ — you know, people shooting guns in the air saying ‘We support Bernie!’  that is so clearly a way to attack him, make him look like a radical revolutionary, and to make Hillary look good, and also make Trump look like a racist when the media plays this up. You’re absolutely right. … To be clear: you have sources inside saying this is a Soros/Brock Media Matters, which they admit is run by the White House, they have weekly meetings, Obama’s former transition chief. … We’ve seen the build-up toward race-war this summer, this fall, to try to cloud the entire election; is that what you’re getting at; is this the opening salvo …  ]

[Stone continues] I think Hillary understands that Trump would lose the votes of certain establishment Republicans if he is the nominee. On the other hand, it doesn’t matter, because of his crossover outreach. Right now in Ohio, Democrats and independents in the Mahoning Valley, these people have lost their jobs because of these great globalist trade deals, are lining up to vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary, which is legal in Ohio with some paperwork. And we saw this same crossover in Michigan. So it occurred to the Clinton people that Bernie’s economic voters — not his hard-left voters, she’s not going to get them, they’re not going for Hillary, blue-collar folks who have just figured out that they have been left out of the new-world-order economy, are a ripe target for Trump; he’s already getting that, she is petrified of it; so, this little maneuver, this David Brock dirty trick, solves two problems at once: it helps knock down Bernie, because after all these people are involved in violence; and it also disqualifies Trump as a future vote, by portraying him as a racist or a bigot. The whole thing is a kabuki dance. And I think it’s very important that Trump understand that it’s not the Sanders campaign that’s disrupting his rallies; this is a Hillary Clinton operation.

[Jones asks for more details.]

[Stone continues] Hillary Clinton empowered a certain member of Congress to approach the billionaire John Lewis to pay for a portion of this overall program. This isn’t just Chicago. You’re now going to see these phony demonstrators, these ringers, showing up at other Trump events. … That’s as much as I’m prepared to say. … 

——

That’s the interview.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign benefits enormously by this tactic:

1: It re-orients the issue away from economics toward race; away from economic issues and toward ethnic conflicts

2: It identifies Sanders with violent supporters.

3: It identifies Trump with racism and violence by his having black ‘Bernie supporters’ (of which there are few) disrupting Trump’s rallies.

4: While it smears both Sanders, her current opponent, and Trump, her likely future opponent, it leaves Hillary herself unscathed.

So: the proposed explanation makes sense, and it’s entirely in character for Hillary Clinton.

Therefore: I believe it.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

“The People Who Cast The Votes Don’t Decide An Election, The People Who COUNT The Votes Do.”

Posted on February 6, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/stealing-election-easier-thought.html

Stealing Elections Is Easier Than You Can Imagine

Princeton University scientists showed how easy it is to steal elections by tampering with voting machines:

Here’s a summary:

So did University of California at Santa Barbara computer scientists:

So did a documentary filmmaker, to the shock of an election official and poll worker:

Indeed, a computer programmer admitted under oath to creating such a vote-switching program:

Argonne National Laboratories showed that voting machines can be hacked without any programming knowledge whatsoever … using around $20 worth of hardware:

Many videos have also been shot showing votes being switched in real-time:

Note how this machine switches votes even after being “recalibrated”:

Vote fraud doesn’t occur just through electronic shenanigans…

Last week local Iowa poll officials were caught on video changing vote tallies:

A quick explanation of what you’re watching (voter fraud):

The important problem is that the Bernie counters recounted everyone, while the Hillary counter was literally recorded telling someone else that she only added newcomers to the count she had before, and then when asked if she recounted everyone, she lied to the organizer and said “Yes”. This means that if anyone left the caucus site who was supporting Bernie, then they were removed by Bernie’s recounters, but any Hillary supporter who left the caucus site was treated as though they were still there for the purposes of the recount. Thus, artificial inflation of her numbers occurred unless everyone who left was a Bernie delegate, on top of the Hillary campaign surrogate lying to an election official to cover up her (negligent at best, malicious at worst) mistake.

And they left the recount up to a Yea Nay vote, which is just ridiculous.

The Des Moines Register noted “something smells” in the primaries.

Something similar happened in 2012:

The Wall Street Journal wrote in a 2008 article entitled “Will This Election Be Stolen?“:

Since early voting started recently, worried voters have reported seeing their votes flipped from Barack Obama to Mr. McCain in West Virginia and Texas.

We reported in 2006:

The non-partisan and highly-respected government agency, the Government Accountability Office, verified that the electronic voting machines used in 2004 were wide open to fraud, and that fraud likely occured in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and other states.

The security flaws in electronic voting machines are so complete that anyone caninstantaneously install software which will change the vote counts. See this New York Times’ Magazine analysis, and also E-Voting Machine an Easy Hack from Wired Magazine.

Exit polling data shows that there was vote fraud.

And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and leading reporter Greg Palast have shown that the emperor’s cronies intentionally spoiled, rejected, purged and otherwise refused to count enough ballots to take the election away from Kerry (not that I like Kerry). See also this article.

And spend 10 minutes at this website and you’ll realize that electronic vote fraud is not some raving conspiracy theory, but is real.

Indeed, the following headlines from the last two weeks hint at the magnitude of the fraud:

• Ohio Election Workers Sentenced to 18 Months for Rigging 2004 Presidential Recount; Judge Says He Believes the Conspiracy Goes Higher…

• Ohio Secretary of State confirms 2004 election could have been Stolen

• CNN gives e-voting an ‘F’ Grade

• Black Box Voting – one of the most credible organizations investigating voting issues – has received unofficial reports that political operatives have urged citizens NOT to ask too many questions and NOT to take photos or video of precinct caucus results, warning them that only “conspiracy theorists” would want to independently confirm the announced results.

And President Carter said that the 2000 election was stolen.

It’s not just skulduggery by one particular party …

Sonoma State University professor and Project Censored Director Peter Phillips noted in 2005:

There is little doubt key Democrats know that votes in 2004 and earlier elections were stolen. The fact that few in Congress are complaining about fraud is an indication of the totality to which both parties accept the status quo of a money based elections system. Neither party wants to further undermine public confidence in the American “democratic” process (over 80 millions eligible voters refused to vote in 2004)…. Future elections in the US will continue as an equal opportunity for both parties to maintain a national democratic charade in which money counts more than truth.

Some voting machine companies are partisan Republicans, and other partisan Democrats.

But some aren’t even American.  For example, a global internet voting company headquartered in Spainpurchased America’s dominant election results reporting company in 2012.

“It’s All Over But the Counting.  And We’ll Take Care of the Counting”

Stalin said:

The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.”

Before the 2004 election, U.S. Congressman Peter King said, “The election is over. We won.”

When a reporter asked, “How do you know that?”, King replied:

It’s all over, but the counting. And we’ll take care of the counting.

Indeed, both the Democrats and Republicans rig votes at their own conventions.

As Mark Twain said:

If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.