July 10, 2016
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
On Election Day (6/7) Hillary led by 56.37 – 43.63%
According to Greg Palast: Bernie won CA by at least 100,000 votes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/27/still-sanders-activists-cling-to-hope-of-flipping-california/
“They said, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton has won by 400,000 votes,” Palast said of the media. “Now, I want you to say this number with me: 1,959,900. That’s the number of ballots that were not yet counted. How do you say an election’s over when there are 2 million ballots left to count?”
According to Palast, those ballots had the potential to flip the election. Based on a call to the secretary of state’s office, he estimated that all of the outstanding ballots were from “no party preference” voters; based on a pre-primary poll, he estimated a 40 percentage point margin for Sanders among those ballots.
“Bernie Sanders got at least 1.25 million votes from that pile,” Palast said. “The good news is that Bernie won California. … If you count every ballot, Sanders would win by 100,000.”
J.T. Waldron writes at http://electionnightmares.com/archives/564
As John Brakey states, “Elections are only as strong as their weakest link”.
Despite California counting only 65% of the ballots on election day, media outlets like Politico and The New York Times ceased from covering the rest of the count, which leaves its audience assuming a literal interpretation of “100% of the precincts reporting”, but that statement does not mean all the votes are counted. It only means precinct ballots from all of the precincts have been counted, but there are many vote-by-mail and provisional ballots that have yet to be included in this total.
In fact, the cumulative count in days following California’s election day proved to be riveting to many Sanders supporters who were watching the Sanders deficit shrink. Brakey assesses the sudden shift:
On election night, shortly after 8:00 PM, the first results were released and they were 99% vote-by-mail ballots. The numbers showed Hillary Clinton with a decisive lead over Bernie Sanders by 25.94% points. Clinton received 62.56% to Sanders 36.63% with 1.52 million vote-by-mail ballots.
By early the next morning, another 1.94 million ballots were counted. Clinton received 50.73% and Sanders got 48.47%, but those numbers are deceiving. On election day, 718,869 voters were forced to vote a provisional ballot which, in my estimate, are 80% Democratic voters with at least 60% going to Sanders. This would be enough to flip the ‘precinct vote’ to Sanders, who would get 52% over Clinton’s new total of 47%. This spread more accurately reflects the pre-election polling numbers.
“Election Justice USA asserts that a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results. During the polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton had a lead over Bernie Sanders in the Los Angeles area that was less than 10 percent. Election Justice USA, a voter advocacy non-profit organization, says that the discrepancy is significant enough to demand a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.
When California county votes are sorted and cumulated from smallest to largest counties, they confirm the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share in the larger counties . One would intuitively expect that the progressive candidate (Sanders) would gain share in the vote-rich urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in small (conservative) counties but not as well in large counties is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping.
Simple California Vote share Model
Assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Sensitivity Analysis- What if Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%
Covert Shredding of Provisional Ballots
A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots were illegally destroyed in a covert shredding operation. A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.
White-out Erasing of Sanders Ballots
Election monitors in San Diego have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the film, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. The mainstream media has yet to report on the startling discovery.
After the Illinois Democratic primary in March, a citizens’ watchdog group monitoring an audit of the votes says they witnessed vote totals being tampered with to benefit Hillary Clinton.
In other video captured by citizen reporters and election monitors in San Diego, an election official attempts to keep monitors away from the windows of a room where “provisional” ballots are being counted by officials. They were cast mostly by independent voters in the primary. At one point an election monitor, a woman, is told by an official to keep her voice down. The election monitor questions what the officials seen through the glass in an off-limits room are doing in the back. The woman tells the official that “you guys are violating the election code, and I’m not going to shut up about it.”
In a follow up interview, Charlie Loomis, the IT manager, confirms that it is indeed white-out that can be seen on the ballots, and that the ballots are being “manipulated.” The IT manager goes on to say that, as a San Diego official, he has no control over this; the white-outs are a result of Democratic party rules on how these provisional ballots must be processed. Loomis said he has “nothing to do with” those rules. He did indicate, however, that after the white-out process, the ballots are “run through the scanner again.”
|Elec Day||June 7 early||1,520,626||951,304||557,005||62.56%||36.63%|
|June 7 late||1,949,824||977,447||945,080||50.73%||48.47%|
|June 8-23||Vote by Mail||1,313,293||645,090||652,707||49.12%||49.70%|
|75%||Sanders||782,381||Uncounted + missing|
|25%||Clinton||260,794||Uncounted + missing|
|Clinton margin||426,665||on June 7|
|Sanders margin||94,922||on July 7|
|Greg Palast||Sanders margin||100,000|