05 Feb

Richard Charnin
Feb.5, 2017

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

Sanders had 43.6% in the California primary on Election Day, June 7. He had 52.7% in ballots counted from June 8-July 7 for a total 46.6% share. View CA counties timeline from June 7 to July 7:

But those are the recorded votes. He did much better than 46.6%.

1- In LA County on Election Day, June 7, Sanders had 33.4% in early voting before 5 pm. He had 42.4% at closing on June 7. He had 45.1% in the final count on July 7. “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”.

2- In San Diego County on Election Day, June 7, Sanders had 35.8% in early voting before 5 pm. He had 44.5% at closing on June 7. He had 48.1% in the final count on July 7. From Ray Lutz: “We won! Press conf details how San Diego County (and many others) cheat on election audits. Court case PROVES election audit fraud in San Diego, where they left out 285,000 ballots from the audit, and then carefully rifled through and pre-counted 192,000 in the audit. Bernie Sanders won 58% to 42% in the polling-place ballots but lost 58% to 42% against HRC in the “rifled through” and precounted vote-by-mail ballots”.

Finally, provisional ballots were a landslide for BS by 62.54% to 37.46%. The Later VBMs and Provisionals were not audited at all, and this was the subject of our lawsuit (which we won). The final margin of victory by HRC was a razor-thin 3.75%. The later VBMs and provisional ballots leaves a big hole for undetectable hacking to occur either by a compromised employee or by external hackers with access to the central tabulator, or simply mistakes in tabulating machines. The margin of victory was only 16,000 votes between Clinton and Sanders in the primary, easily hid in the 285,000 unaudited ballots, and even in those 68,000 accepted but unaudited provisional. Clearly, such blatant violation of the election code is a form of election fraud.

3- Humboldt County,CA is the only one in the U.S. with a foolproof Open Source vote counting/audit system. Is it just a coincidence that Bernie had his highest share in Humboldt (71%)?

J.T. Waldron writes at
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”.


Posted by on February 5, 2017 in 2016 election


Tags: ,


  1. CarlAntoine

    February 8, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    Reblogged this on CarlAntoine and commented:
    #BernieSanders #Clinton election fraud !
    #ENL #Marine2017 Le Pen Trump BrExit !
    #Macron exit

  2. Nathan Gant

    February 12, 2017 at 8:18 pm

    I don’t know why there are people who cannot accept the results from statistical science. It is obvious that the Humbolt County model should be expanded to insure election integrity in the whole USA.

    The voting systems in the US are largely no different than factories which are constantly producing defective widgets, far above and beyond that which can be controlled thru standard Quality Control processes on the production line. In fact, the system defects in our voting machines are so enormous that one must assume deliberate sabotage and then, even worse, the evidence is being hidden and then tossed into dumpsters to get rid of the incriminating evidence.

    • Mike Stavenes

      March 19, 2017 at 11:52 am

      Good analogy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: